Opinion ID: 2198005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Opening Statement Waived

Text: Robinson's third claim is that the Superior Court improperly prevented defense counsel from referring to her federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) license during opening statements on the ground of relevancy. Specifically, Robinson contends that her counsel should have been able to argue that she had a valid DEA license, presumably to support an argument that she had authority, under federal law, to write the prescriptions at issue in the case. As a result of the judge's ruling, Robinson argues, her counsel was forced to waive his opening statement. The Superior Court has wide discretion to rule on issues of relevancy. [4] We conclude that its ruling in this case was a proper exercise of its discretion. Moreover, the record reflects that Robinson's counsel made a tactical decision to waive his opening statement. To the extent that Robinson claims ineffective assistance by her counsel on that ground, we decline to consider any such claim for the first time in Robinson's direct appeal. [5]