 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Ford8/25/2005
istent defenses may weaken counsel's credibility, it may be a reasonable approach based on circumstances involved in a particular case. (See People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1138-1139; People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 291-292.)
In this case, the circumstances justified defense counsel's strategy. Defense counsel was forced to address the evidence presented at trial. While the evidence suggested several different defenses, none of them were particularly strong. Defense counsel, therefore, chose to offer all the possible defenses with the hope that the jury may find one of them meritorious. While another attorney may have decided to rely on a single defense, we cannot conclude that defense counsel's performance fell outside the wide range of reasonable professional conduct.
Based on defendant's police statement, defense counsel could have argued intoxication, mental incapacity, accident, self-defense, and factual impossibility. Defendant claimed that he drank about 12 beers during the course of the day. In addition to the beer, defendant also mentioned that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and was taking Prozac and Xanex on a daily basis. He described the shooting as an accident. According to defendant, he simply poked Johnson in the rib and the gun went off. Defendant also said that he was afraid of Johnson because he believed that he was a hit man. As to the defense of factual impossibility, defendant told the police that he could not pull the trigger because he did not have a right index finger.
None of these defenses, standing alone, would have convinced the jury of defendant's innocence. While there was strong evidence that defendant was intoxicated, the evidence failed to show that defendant was incapable of forming the requisite intent to kill. Although the bartender confirmed that defendant had several drinks, she did not believe that defendant was drunk enough that she needed to stop serving him. The toxicologist testified that, based on defendant's blood alcohol level of 0.16 at the time of his arrest, he likely had a blood alcohol level of about 0.24 or greater at the time of the shooting. The toxicologist, however, testified that defendant was not incapable of forming a plan of action and carrying it out to completion.
As for defendant's claim of mental incapacity, defense counsel presented the testimony of defendant's psychologist and psychiatrist. Although defendant had depression and other psychological problems, he did not have a mental illness.
Defendant's statement was the only evidence to support his claim that the shooting was an accident. Likewise, defendant's claim of self- defense depended entirely on his statement that he believed that Johnson was a hit man and he felt threatened by Johnson's comments.
In his statement, defendant also claimed that he could not pull the trigger because of his missing right index finger. Although defendant is right handed, there was no evidence as to whether defendant could have used his left hand or another finger to pull the trigger.
Defense counsel had to address the evidence before the jury. None of the defenses were particularly strong. In his closing argument, defense counsel cast doubt on the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. He also argued that none of the witnesses, with the exception of Johnson, was present during the shooting. Johnson had a propensity for violence. Defendant was in a compromised mental state. And the shooting was likely the result of self-defense or an accident. Although self-defense and accident are inconsistent defenses, counsel's approach was to provide the jury with an alternative to finding an intentional killing. Mo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|