Opinion ID: 2188660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Was defendant denied the effective assistance of counsel by his attorney's failure to issue a subpoena to a key witness concerning the victim's whereabouts or to request a continuance when the witness failed to appear for trial?

Text: In a recent series of capital cases, we have set forth the standards for determining whether a capital defendant has received the effective assistance of counsel at both phases of a trial. See State v. Oglesby, 122 N.J. 522, 538-39, 585 A. 2d 916 (1991) (Handler, J., concurring). Capital defendants are guaranteed competent capital counsel. State v. Davis, 116 N.J. 341, 356, 561 A. 2d 1082 (1989). In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that the attorney's performance was so deficient as to create a reasonable probability that [that] deficiency materially contributed to defendant's conviction   . State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58, 519 A. 2d 336 (1987). Matters of strategy or trial tactics are almost always unassailable when they are based on a proper understanding of the law and evaluation of all the facts in a case. State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 165, 586 A. 2d 85 (1991). In this case, one of the critical issues was when the murder occurred. Defendant asserts that a potential witness, Gary Bey, would have placed the victim at the Maple Lake Inn, alive, sometime after 11:00 p.m. on August 26, 1988. Defense counsel presented one witness, Arthur Ellison, who testified that he had seen the victim talking with Bey at the Maple Lake Inn some time that evening, but he did not specify the time. It was obviously critical whether Talley had been killed shortly before 9:00 p.m. on August 26 in a fight in defendant's backyard or whether he, in fact, had still been alive later that evening and, therefore, was killed by someone else. In his opening statement, defense counsel said that he intended to produce two witnesses who would place the victim alive at the Inn at midnight. Following Ellison's testimony, which was far from definitive, defense counsel asked the court for a few minutes to find out whether Bey was available. Bey had assured him that he would appear, but he did not. Later that day, defense counsel put on the record that we did wait for Gary Bey until 11:30, and then rested his case. The question is whether to fail to request a continuance at that time in order to subpoena the witness or to fail to have previously issued a warrant for the production of the witness was ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant argues that counsel's failure to subpoena Gary Bey or to seek a continuance to serve a subpoena was not reasonable considering all the circumstances. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674, 694 (1984). We are unable, however, to evaluate fully the claim because we are unable to ascertain what effect the production of the witness would have had on this case. Defendant suggests that Bey would have corroborated his theory, but of course that is not known. The record is insufficient to determine whether any prejudice ensued from the foregoing circumstance. See State v. Dixon, supra, 125 N.J. at 259-62, 593 A. 2d 266 (discussion of hearing requirement in claims of ineffective assistance of counsel).