Opinion ID: 2362153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to object to Lachette's testimony

Text: On direct examination, the State asked Lachette, What were your thoughts when you and the defendant were talking about doing a burglary, a house burglary? [17] Lachette responded, I originally wasn't going to do it. It was something he did, I don't want to say as a habit, but it was something that he often did.  [18] Jackson argues that because trial counsel did not object to Lachette's response and move for a mistrial that he did not receive a fair trial. The Superior Court correctly found this issue procedurally barred under Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(i)(3). Even if this claim were not barred by Rule 61, the mere fact that trial counsel did not object does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. First, Lachette did not respond to the question as asked, and, thus, trial counsel could not have objected before Lachette gave his response. Second, and more importantly, trial counsel may have made the tactical decision to remain silent rather than draw attention to Lachette's response by emphasizing it with an objection. Jackson fails to show how trial counsel's omission so prejudiced him that he did not receive a fair trial. In summary, even if Jackson's appointment of counsel scenario implicates Cronic and it can be said that counsel appeared to be appointed too close to trial, Jackson cannot persuade us that that tardiness so prejudiced him that he did not receive a fair trial or that counsel were so otherwise deficient in their representation that they failed at trial to provide him adequate assistance.