Opinion ID: 1402700
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Mitigating Social History

Text: Appellant contends the trial court erred by allowing defense counsel to present mitigating social history evidence and call Appellant's family members as mitigation witnesses over Appellant's objection. We disagree. An attorney undoubtedly has a duty to consult with the client regarding `important decisions,' including questions of overarching defense strategy. Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 187, 125 S.Ct. 551, 560, 160 L.Ed.2d 565, 578 (2004) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 694 (1984)). That obligation, however, does not require counsel to obtain the defendant's consent to `every tactical decision.' Id. (quoting Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 418, 108 S.Ct. 646, 657, 98 L.Ed.2d 798, 816 (1988)). The introduction of the mitigation evidence at issue was a tactical decision made by Appellant's trial counsel and is reviewed on a case by case basis. The mitigation evidence presented served the purpose of humanizing Appellant to the jury. We find the introduction of this mitigation evidence was a tactical decision made by trial counsel and the trial court committed no error in admitting mitigating evidence that Appellant did not want to be introduced.