Opinion ID: 6108244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Call an Alibi Witness

Text: When a petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel concerning the  failure to call witnesses, it is incumbent on the petitioner to name the witness, provide a summary of the testimony, and establish that the testimony would have been admissible into evidence. Id. To demonstrate prejudice, the petitioner is required to establish that there was a reasonable probability that, had counsel presented the witness, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. Id. In the petition filed below, Collins named a specific witness who resided in Panama City, Florida, and who allegedly would verify that Collins was working for a construction company in Florida when the crimes for which he was convicted occurred. In support of his claim, Collins points to a motion for continuance filed by his first attorney, Robert Jeffrey. A review of the record on appeal 3 reveals that Collins's first counsel asked for a continuance for the purpose of investigating the above-referenced alibi evidence and testimony. Attached to the motion was an affidavit executed by counsel as well as documents from a construction company in Florida confirming that Collins was hired in July 2009 and was working there during the relevant time frame. Collins contends that his second counsel, James Bennett, who conducted the trial, failed to follow through with an investigation of this alleged alibi evidence. As stated above, the trial court denied this claim, concluding that the decision to call a witness was one of trial strategy and did not represent ineffective assistance of counsel. This court reviews the trial court's decision on Rule 37.1 petitions for clear error. Russell v. State , 2017 Ark. 174 , 518 S.W.3d 674 . A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the totality of the evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Polivka v. State , 2010 Ark. 152 , 362 S.W.3d 918 . Because Collins specified the alibi evidence his trial counsel allegedly failed to develop and provided the name of a specific witness, as well as the anticipated testimony of that witness, it cannot be determined from the face of these allegations that they are clearly without merit. Johnson , 2018 Ark. 6 , 534 S.W.3d 143 . Therefore, a hearing should have been held to provide an opportunity for Collins's trial counsel to explain the failure to investigate and present this alleged alibi testimony. Furthermore, although calling a witness is generally a matter of trial strategy, failing to call a witness that could provide a credible alibi would likely represent an unreasonable strategy capable of prejudicing the outcome of the trial. Therefore, conducting a hearing to obtain testimony from Collins's trial counsel was necessary to determine the merits of this ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.