Opinion ID: 2545831
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Duarte's Declaration in Support of Restraining Order

Text: In connection with testimony that murder victim Duarte had obtained a restraining order against defendant, the prosecutor moved into evidence the restraining order and supporting court documents. Included was Duarte's declaration of July 17, 1980 (some six months before her murder) detailing facts to justify the restraining order. These included assertions that defendant had pounded [Duarte's] head against the wall and threw [her] to the ground, destroyed [Duarte's] phones to prevent [her] from calling the Police, and repeatedly threatened to kill Duarte if [she] did not let him continue to reside in [her] home. Duarte's declaration further stated that she had changed the locks on her doors but defendant managed to break in through windows, that defendant carried a gun on his person at all times, that she believed he had a history of mental illness, and that she feared for her own life and that of her then four-year-old son. Citing People v. Noguera (1992) 4 Cal.4th 599, 621, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d 1160, defendant asserts that Duarte's statements were inadmissible hearsay and not relevant to any issue in the case (see People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 872-873, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 602, 69 P.3d 446), and that consequently trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in not objecting to Duarte's declaration. The Attorney General observes that the decision whether to object is inherently tactical, and thus will seldom establish incompetence. ( People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 490-191, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249.) He asserts that counsel had a tactical reason for failing to object to the declaration: It supported the defense efforts to portray defendant not [as] a cold-blooded killer, [but as] a mentally ill person who murdered [Duarte] out of a fit of rage, after being rejected by her. Whether or not counsel had a sound tactical reason for objecting to admission of Duarte's declaration, defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail. Given the overwhelming evidence that defendant killed his former girlfriend Duarte, he suffered no possible prejudice from the admission into evidence of Duarte's declaration asserting that he was violent and had threatened to kill her. (See Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052.)