 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bondurant3/20/1998
and deliberate murder. Thus, the defendant argues that the decision not to pursue a mental capacity defense at the guilt stage was not an informed decision due to trial counsel's failure to investigate his client's mental state. The defendant goes on to argue that trial counsel's failure to investigate was exacerbated by the fact that the evidence of the defendant's involvement in the murder was strong.
Trial counsel's decision to pursue a reasonable doubt defense was clearly a strategic choice. Moreover, we find that trial counsel's decision to pursue this defense, after reviewing the defendant's TDOC medical records and determining that additional investigation was unnecessary, was a reasonable decision as to the guilt phase. Trial counsel investigated all potential witnesses, discussed the case with the defendant, and talked with attorneys Massey and Sands. The defendant never indicated to trial counsel that he committed the murder, and counsel was under no obligation to press his client to confess. During his interviews with the defendant, trial counsel never saw the defendant behave in a way that indicated to counsel he should pursue a mental capacity defense.
Standing alone, the fact that a particular strategy or tactic failed or hindered the defense does not establish unreasonable representation. Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 369 (Tenn. 1996). Courts must give deference to strategic and tactical choices if they are informed ones based on adequate preparation. Hellard v. State, 629 S.W.2d 4, 9 (Tenn. 1982). In the present case, the proof was all circumstantial, and it was not unreasonable for counsel to pursue a strategy of poking holes in the state's case. We find that counsel's strategic decision to follow a reasonable doubt defense and not to pursue a mental incapacity defense was reasonable.
As a related issue, the defendant contends that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to accept available assistance. The defendant points to counsel's failure to take advantage of assistance offered to him by District Public Defender Robert Massey and by Capital Case Resource Center (CCRC). The defendant has neither shown that counsel's failure to fully utilize these resources was deficient nor that the claimed deficiency was prejudicial.
D. Failure to Impeach Key Witness.
Next, the defendant argues that trial counsel failed to investigate or take advantage of available documents and information that could have been used to impeach the testimony of Denise, the only witness who testified as to the details of the murder. Specifically, the defendant points to several materials that were used in the Dugger trial to impeach Denise's credibility, including a fabricated application for an apartment lease filled out by Denise, an immunity agreement given to Denise in return for her cooperation, a list of money paid to or on behalf of Denise during the investigation, certified convictions from Alabama and Tennessee, her juvenile record, information about forged and worthless checks, and information that Denise had used aliases to obtain prescription drugs.
Massey offered to provide the same documentation and information to Colley, who did not pursue it for use in this case. Clearly, failing to explore the use of these documents and information in order to impeach Denise, the state's only witness concerning the facts and circumstances of the murder, fell below "the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases." Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936.
We find, however, that the defendant has failed to show prejudice and is entitled no relief. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693, 104 S. Ct. at 2067. At trial, Denise admitted on t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|