Opinion ID: 885360
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Failure to present the defense theory through Amy Rodstein's testimony.

Text: ś 89 Dawson argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because they did not ask about Amy's statement to the police that she saw a man who acted as a look out, and that Dawson signaled to this man. Dawson asserts that this was a failure to present critical evidence by which he was prejudiced. ś 90 In response, the State contends that Dawson overstates the nature and significance of Amy's observations. The State points out that in her police statement, Amy merely stated that she saw a man standing in the parking lot, looking at the main office, that she did not think that she could identify him because it was too dark, he was too far away, and he did not look directly at them; that, later on, Dawson said that there was a guy outside that was his watch-out for him; and that Amy said she did not know for sure if Dawson was referring to the man she saw in the parking lot as being the watch-out. ś 91 At the evidentiary hearing to consider Dawson's petition for postconviction relief, defense counsel Allen Beck testified to the following as his reason for not questioning Amy regarding the alleged watch-out: Q. Do you recall whether you had a reason for not asking Damon Gannett to question her regarding those-regarding that observation? A. Well ... it was my observation of Amy Rodstein at that time that she had reached her limit. I didn't think that she was capable of proceeding, and I just simply wanted her off the stand, rather than prolonging anything further. ś 92 The District Court found that: A failure to cross examine her about other particular issues when her testimony ended abruptly at the emotional moment referred to in the findings was also appropriate. She had already testified to certain conduct and observations of Dawson related to other individuals in telephone calls and travelling [sic] to homes supportive of the defense theory. ś 93 The record reveals that at the conclusion of Amy's testimony, she was asked what she was thinking prior to a police detective opening the door, and she answered: I was thinking: Why is this happening to me and my family: Am I going to live to see tomorrow? Is my Mom and Dad and my Brother going to be with me? At that point, Mr. Gannett asked for a break, which the court granted. Both the State and Dawson's counsel then proceeded to chambers where they made a record which reflected the various emotional responses to the end of Amy's testimony. Apparently, Amy, several members of the jury, and other persons in the court room were either crying, or having some emotional reaction to her testimony. It was at this point that Dawson's counsel decided not to subject Amy to further examination. ś 94 We conclude that under the circumstances, Dawson's counsel's decision to not subject Amy to further questioning, was reasonable. Amy had previously testified regarding certain conduct and observations of Dawson related to other individuals which supported the defense theory that Dawson acted under the duress or control of another. While Amy's further testimony may or may not have added to that theory, it was reasonable for Dawson's counsel to believe that having Amy on the stand, in the emotional state she was in, and further working the jurors' emotions, would have been more damaging to the defense than helpful. Therefore, we conclude that the District Court did not err when it found that Dawson's counsel were not ineffective when they chose not to examine Amy further.