 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Glagola11/10/2003
the proceeding would have been different had the instruction on the defense of accident been given to the jury." Id.
The record in the case sub judice indicates the trial court instructed the jury with the standard definition of causation as to murder and reckless homicide. See Tr. Vol. III at 47-52 and 53-56. According to our decision, in Rohaley, a specific instruction on the defense of accident would not have added anything to the general instruction.
Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not commit plain error when it failed to instruct the jury on the offense of negligent homicide and the defense of accident.
Appellant's First Assignment of Error is overruled.
II.
In her Second Assignment of Error, appellant maintains she received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to request and/or object to the trial court's failure to instruct on the charge of negligent homicide and the defense of accident. We disagree.
A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel requires a two-prong analysis. The first inquiry is whether counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation involving a substantial violation of any of defense counsel's essential duties to appellant. The second prong is whether the appellant was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness. Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136.
In determining whether counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential. Bradley at 142. Because of the difficulties inherent in determining whether effective assistance of counsel was rendered in any give case, a strong presumption exists counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable, professional assistance. Id.
In order to warrant a reversal, the appellant must additionally show he was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness. "Prejudice from defective representation sufficient to justify reversal of a conviction exists only where the result of the trial was unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair because of the performance of trial counsel. Lockhart v. Fretwell (1993), 506 U.S. 364, 370.
The United States Supreme Court and the Ohio Supreme Court have held a reviewing court "* * * need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies." Bradley at 143, quoting Strickland at 697. As such, we will direct our attention to the second prong of the Strickland test.
In appellant's First Assignment of Error, we concluded the trial court did not commit plain error when it failed to instruct the jury on the offense of negligent homicide and the defense of accident. Because appellant claimed the shooting was accidental, a request for a jury instruction on negligent homicide would have been inconsistent with the defense's strategy of seeking an acquittal. Due to the inconsistency that would have been created by requesting a charge on negligent homicide and pursuing the defense of accident, appellant was not prejudiced by defense counsel's failure to request such an instruction. Further, appellant was also not prejudiced by defense counsel's failure to request an instruction on the defense of accident pursuant to our previous decision in Rohaley.
Accordingly, we conclude appellant cannot establish that she was prejudiced by defense counsel's performance. There is no evidence that indicates the result of the trial was unreliable or the proceeding was fundam
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|