Opinion ID: 6108254
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Spears's Irreconcilable Confession

Text: Collings's fourth point on appeal contends the motion court erred in denying his claim that trial counsel were ineffective in failing to present Spears's inconsistent and irreconcilable confession during the guilt phase of trial. He argues Spears's confession would have demonstrated police coercion in obtaining Collings's own confession and there was a reasonable probability the jury would not have convicted him of first-degree murder or would not have voted for death. Ordinarily, the failure to call a witness will not support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the choice of witnesses is presumptively a matter of trial strategy. Tisius , 519 S.W.3d at 427 . If a potential witness's testimony would not unqualifiedly support a defendant, the failure to call such a witness does not constitute ineffective assistance. Id. Defense counsel called Spears to testify, but he invoked his Fifth Amendment right outside the jury's presence and did not testify. Even though other testimony presented at trial informed the jury that Spears had confessed to being involved with Ford's murder, Collings argues the jury needed to hear Spears's actual confession in his own voice via his recorded statement to law enforcement. Otherwise, Collings suggests the jury could have believed law enforcement was using an interrogation tactic and simply told Collings that Spears had confessed in an effort to trick him into implicating himself. 11 The motion court denied the claim, finding trial counsel had a reasonable strategy for not wanting to introduce Spears's confession as it was not exonerating and, in reality, suggested more deliberation on Collings's part. At the evidentiary hearing, one of Collings's trial counsel testified the defense never wanted that jury to hear David Spears's statements at all for any reason. According to counsel, the defense strategy was never going to be an innocence case because Collings had made too many statements in too great of detail. Consequently, the defense believed it was their best strategy to use his statements to argue for a second-degree murder conviction. Essentially, trial counsel believed they had a better chance of convincing the jury that Collings did not deliberate before killing Ford, but he only reacted once she recognized him after he sexually assaulted her. As explained above, trial counsel's decision regarding trial strategy will only be deemed ineffective if the decision was unreasonable. McLaughlin , 378 S.W.3d at 337 . Given the facts surrounding Collings's confession and the details contained therein, it was not unreasonable for his trial  counsel to argue for second-degree murder based on a lack of deliberation. As a result, it was not unreasonable for trial counsel to avoid Spears's statement suggesting more deliberation on Collings's part. Further, the jury was presented with other evidence of Spears's statements implicating himself and Collings in Ford's murder. This Court has recognized, Failure to present evidence that is cumulative to that presented at trial does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 343 . Accordingly, the motion court did not clearly err in denying this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.