Richardson-Bethea v. State

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Richardson-Bethea’s motion for a new trial, assuming without deciding that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to consult or present a defense forensic pathologist. It held that the proffered expert’s equivocal testimony would not have created a reasonable probability of a different verdict because the testimony largely corroborated the State’s medical evidence and did not address other evidence undermining the defense theory. The court also independently determined that the trial evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions.