Opinion ID: 1188886
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Trial counsel's failure to request an accomplice instruction or other instruction addressing the credibility of the state's witnesses.

Text: Riley next alleges that Johnson and Jackson were clearly accomplices of Riley, and that counsel's failure to request an accomplice instruction at the guilt phase of trial was ineffective assistance of counsel. Riley further argues that counsel's failure to request any instruction addressing the credibility of the witnesses as compensated informants, co-conspirators, and addict witnesses was ineffective. Dahl testified at the evidentiary hearing that his only theory of the case was that Jackson, not Riley, shot Bollin. He further testified that asking for an accomplice instruction would have undermined this defense. In this case, the decision not to ask for an accomplice instruction reflects a reasonable tactical choice and such a valid tactical choice is entitled to deference. See United States v. Murray, 751 F.2d 1528, 1535 (9th Cir.1985) (reviewing court not to second-guess legitimate tactical decisions, and counsel's conduct falling within wide range of reasonable professional conduct will not be deemed ineffective), cert. denied 474 U.S. 979, 106 S.Ct. 381, 88 L.Ed.2d 335 (1985). Accordingly, we conclude that this choice was within the range of reasonably effective assistance guaranteed Riley by the Nevada and United States Constitutions. Moreover, an accomplice instruction advises the jury that it should view as suspect incriminating testimony given by those who are liable to prosecution for the identical charged offense as the accused. See Ramirez-Garza v. State, 108 Nev. 376, 378, 832 P.2d 392, 392-93 (1992). In this case, the record is wholly devoid of evidence tending to support a theory of joint criminal liability and no evidence supports the conclusion that Jackson or Johnson was liable to prosecution for this offense. Thus, neither Johnson's nor Jackson's testimony was suspect, and, as a result, the factual predicates for invoking the accomplice instruction are absent. Riley also argues that Dahl should have requested various other instructions addressing the credibility of Johnson, Jackson and Gordon. Specifically, he claims that instructions were warranted because the three were compensated informants, co-conspirators, and addict witnesses. Riley fails to support his claim that the three were compensated informants. They were merely percipient witnesses, and there is no evidence of record that any of the witnesses at trial were paid or had received a deal in exchange for their testimony. Riley also fails to support his claim that the three were co-conspirators. There is no evidence of record to support a conspiracy theory, or any other theory of joint criminal liability. Finally, Riley advances no addict witness instruction that is currently in use in Nevada or elsewhere. The trial judge found that he was left to speculate as to what instruction should have been given concerning witnesses who might have been drug users who appeared and testified ... at trial. In addition to the speculative nature of the possible addict instruction, it is noteworthy that both counsel in closing arguments repeatedly emphasized that the witnesses were either on drugs, or had recently ingested drugs, namely crack cocaine. Riley emphasized this to undermine the witnesses' credibility, the state to admit the negative aspects of its witnesses' backgrounds and factors affecting their ability to perceive and relate the events at issue. The jury was instructed to use its common sense and to consider the arguments of both counsel in determining credibility and weight of the evidence. Thus, even if there is an appropriate instruction available, which competent counsel might normally request, Riley has failed to produce evidence or arguments to show that the jury's verdict was unreliable because of the failure to proffer such an instruction. As a result, he has failed to show prejudice flowing from the failure to request this instruction.