Opinion ID: 1377397
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Diminished Capacity/Effective Assistance of Counsel

Text: (3) Defendant claims his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to pursue or assert a diminished capacity defense. The appellate record does not establish ineffectiveness. First, we doubt counsel acted unreasonably in failing to assert such a defense. Counsel did retain a psychiatrist, and from this record we believe he could have made a reasonable tactical decision that defendant's abili story was his strongest defense, and that it would be better not to present conflicting defenses. Second, even assuming counsel acted unreasonably, it cannot be said from this record that counsel's failure to pursue that defense prejudiced defendant. ( People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 584 [189 Cal. Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144].) There is no showing of what, if anything, could have been presented. (4) Nor can we agree that the court erred in declining to instruct on diminished capacity. As noted above, there is some evidence in the record that defendant shared two Sherms with his companions before the 7-Eleven murder. There was, however, no evidence that defendant was thereby impaired; no psychiatric testimony was offered, and defendant did not testify, nor did any of defendant's companions notice that he was affected in any way by the Sherms. Coward testified defendant walked and spoke normally after smoking the first Sherm and did not act unusually during the night. Moreover, there was no evidence that defendant smoked PCP or for any other reason suffered diminished capacity at the time of the Brookhaven murders. Indeed, at oral argument, defense counsel admitted the diminished capacity defense was not fully developed. Based on these facts, the trial court found there was not sufficient evidence to support diminished capacity instructions, and refused to so instruct. We agree that the evidence of defendant's alleged diminished capacity was too insubstantial to require submission of the defense to the jury. ( People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 159 [158 Cal. Rptr. 281, 599 P.2d 587]; see also, id., at pp. 155-157; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684-685 [160 Cal. Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1]; People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal.3d 287, 294-295 [104 Cal. Rptr. 705, 502 P.2d 513] and cases therein cited.)