Opinion ID: 6498634
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Calling the Defendant’s Wife as a Witness

Text: The defendant first argues that trial counsel was ineffective because he called the defendant’s wife to testify at trial. The trial court found that the defendant directed trial counsel to call the defendant’s wife as a witness despite trial counsel’s advice that his wife’s testimony would be damaging to his case. The court found that trial counsel “fully informed [the d]efendant of the potential consequences and tried to discourage [him] from having [the defendant’s wife] testify, but [the d]efendant chose to disregard those warnings,” insisting she testify. The trial court concluded that “[u]nder these circumstances, [it] [could not] find that [trial counsel]’s performance was constitutionally deficient” and that the defendant had failed to meet the first prong of an ineffectiveness test. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred because trial counsel did not fully inform him of the damage that would be done to his case if the defendant’s wife testified. We disagree. In State v. Candello, 170 N.H. 220 (2017), we observed that attorneys have a duty to consult with their clients regarding important decisions, including questions of overarching defense strategy. Candello, 170 N.H. at 228. However, that obligation does not require counsel to obtain the defendant’s consent to every tactical decision. Id. The decision of whether to object to inadmissible evidence is an aspect of trial strategy that counsel may make on behalf of a defendant. Id. at 229. This does not mean that counsel is required to ignore the defendant’s request to allow the admission of such evidence. Id. Rather, the reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions. Id. This is so because trial counsel, while held to a standard of reasonable effectiveness, is still only an assistant to the defendant and not the master of the defense. Id. As a result, in evaluating strategic choices of trial counsel, we must give great deference to choices that are made under the explicit direction of the client. Id. Accordingly, if counsel is commanded by his client to present a certain defense, and if he does thoroughly explain the potential problems with the suggested approach, then his ultimate decision to follow the client’s will may not be lightly disturbed. Id. Here, trial counsel testified in his deposition that the defendant’s wife “practically forced her way into testifying” and intended to do so from the outset of the case. He described the defendant’s wife as “very high strung, very emotional . . . and hard to have a normal . . . calm conversation with.” He articulated that he believed the defendant’s wife “was all about the money” and 6 that she hurt the defendant’s theory of the case. Trial counsel also testified that, leading to trial, he counseled the defendant that he and his legal partner believed that the defendant’s wife’s testimony would be more inculpatory than exculpatory and provided their rationale. He stated that, prior to trial, he gave the defendant a final warning, urging him not to call his wife as a witness. During that conversation, the defendant acknowledged that he understood trial counsel’s advice but directed trial counsel to call her regardless, stating, “I know you have to tell me these things but if [my wife] wants to testify, she’s going to testify.” We conclude that the record supports the trial court’s findings that trial counsel thoroughly explained the potential consequences of calling the defendant’s wife to testify and that the defendant directed him to call her regardless. As a result, we cannot say that trial counsel’s actions here, done at the direction of the defendant, were objectively unreasonable. See id.; see also Cable, 168 N.H. at 680-81. Thus, under the circumstances, we conclude that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient. See Candello, 170 N.H. at 228-29.