Opinion ID: 883492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Defense counsel failed to call a witness whose testimony tended to impeach the credibility and accuracy of Reece Cobeen's testimony.

Text: Bruce argues that a witness who spoke with Reece Cobeen after the shooting incident was available and willing to testify. This witness would presumably testify that Cobeen told him that he was standing at his pickup, not at the bottom of the stairs, when the shooting occurred. Bruce maintains that this witness would have discredited Cobeen's testimony and thus would have raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Defense counsel admits that he negligently failed to get the witness on the stand. The State concedes that the failure of defense counsel to call this witness rendered counsel's performance deficient, thus satisfying the first prong of the Strickland test. However, the State maintains that Bruce has failed to establish that his counsel's deficient performance was so prejudicial that he was denied a fair trial. For the purpose of this appeal, we will assume without deciding that defense counsel's failure to call a relevant witness resulted in deficient representation. We therefore proceed to the second prong of the Strickland test which addresses, whether a reasonable probability exists that but for counsel's deficient performance, the trial's outcome would have been different. State v. Sheppard (1995), 270 Mont. 122, 127, 890 P.2d 754, 757. Cobeen's location in relationship to the front porch, while relevant to this case, is not dispositive. A review of the record reveals, absent Cobeen's testimony in its entirety, substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. Bruce admits shooting Jim and Alice. Bruce's wife Gabby testified that Jim and Alice were her guests and that she had invited them into the Hagen residence. Jim and Alice were both unarmed at the time of the incident. Jim testified that Bruce called his name prior to shooting him. Bruce testified that after shooting Jim, he turned and shot Alice without regard at whom he was firing. The testimony of the defendant Bruce Hagen, his wife Gabby, and the victim Jim Enger established substantial evidence to uphold the verdicts of deliberate homicide and aggravated assault. We conclude that no reasonable probability exists that but for defense counsel's deficient performance, the result of the trial would have been different. Based on the discussion above, we hold that Bruce was not denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the decision of the District Court. GRAY, NELSON, HUNT and LEAPHART, JJ., concur.