Opinion ID: 6107861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Interview Witnesses and Codefendants

Text: For his third point on appeal, Gordon contends that his trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to interview witnesses and codefendants. Regarding trial counsel's decision whether to interview or call a witness, such matters are generally trial strategy and outside the purview of Rule 37.1. Wertz , 2014 Ark. 240 , 434 S.W.3d 895 . Where a petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to interview or call a witness, it is incumbent on the petitioner to name the witness, provide a summary of the testimony, and establish that the testimony would have been admissible into evidence. Id. In order to demonstrate prejudice, the petitioner is required to establish that there was a reasonable probability that, had counsel performed further investigation and presented the witness, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Id. When assessing counsel's decision not to call a particular witness, we must take into account that the decision is largely a matter of professional judgment, and the fact that there was a witness or witnesses who could have offered beneficial testimony is not, in itself, proof of counsel's ineffectiveness. Noel v. State , 342 Ark. 35 , 26 S.W.3d 123 (2000). In his petition, Gordon alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview witnesses and codefendants. Specifically, Gordon contends that had counsel interviewed Jones, his codefendant, counsel would have determined that Jones was innocent and that Jones pleaded guilty only because Gordon threatened Jones, which disprove[es] the State's case-in-chief of a premeditated murder for hire. Further, in his Rule 37.1 petition, Gordon argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to support his theory of defense because he failed to interview witnesses, and look into statements and notes that were a part of the record. Gordon further argued below that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call or interview Danny Brown, Quentin Jones, and T. Brown, and counsel's failure to test the [S]tate's case in this fashion left [Gordon] without a defense to Capital Murder. Here, Gordon failed to provide a summary of the witnesses' testimony and establish that the testimony would have been admissible. See Wertz , 2014 Ark. 240 , 434 S.W.3d 895 . Gordon has failed to demonstrate that had counsel performed any further investigation and presented the witness or witnesses, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Further, Gordon has gone beyond the scope of his argument made below. An appellant is limited to the scope and nature of the arguments made below, and he or she cannot raise new arguments on appeal or add factual substantiation to the allegations made below.  Woods , 342 Ark. 89 , 27 S.W.3d 367 . We affirm the circuit court on this point.