Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Response to evidence of attempted sodomy and sexuality

Text: Defendant contends that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to move for a continuance, to reopen jury voir dire in order to ascertain any bias based on the matter of sexual orientation, or to select a new jury when the existing jury learned during the guilt phase that the prosecution intended at the penalty phase to present evidence of attempted sodomy. Defense counsel purportedly also were ineffective in failing to prepare a defense to that evidence, and in failing to object to the jury instructions on the subject of attempted sodomy. The record discloses that the defense objected at the outset of the penalty phase to the admission of this evidence. Upon their request, defense counsel were granted a continuance to permit them to interview potential witnesses housed in the same cellblock area as defendant, who apparently had contacted these individuals previously. Defense counsel may have had tactical reasons for not requesting an additional continuance, for example to avoid possibly alienating the jury. ( People v. Johnson, supra, 6 Cal.4th 1, 50-51, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 593, 859 P.2d 673.) Defense counsel simply may have contacted the available witnesses during the time period provided. ( People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1153-1154, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1.) Defense counsel may have decided to decline to ask jurors any questions on this subject as a matter of trial tactics (see People v. Horton, supra, 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1123, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478; People v. Freeman, supra, 8 Cal.4th 450, 485, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249), and counsel reasonably could decide not to emphasize the subject by reopening voir dire. Similarly, defense counsel reasonably could have concluded as a matter of tactics that it was preferable not to move to select a new jury, and in any event it appears highly unlikely that such a motion would have been successful. Finally, the record contains no indication of actual bias on the part of any juror resulting from the introduction of this evidence. The record does not establish that defense counsel failed to prepare to defend against the testimony concerning the attempted sodomy incident. The testimony to be offered by the prosecution was not lengthy or complex, requiring significant investigation. Defense counsel had the opportunity to contact potentially helpful witnesses, and there is no indication additional witnesses could have been located or would testify differently from White. Nor does counsel's failure to request a jury instruction defining attempted sodomy indicate ineffective assistance. Defense counsel as a matter of trial tactics frequently do not seek extensive jury instructions on the elements of purported criminal activity introduced at the penalty phase. ( People v. Hawkins, supra, 10 Cal.4th 920, 963-964, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 897 P.2d 574; People v. Tuilaepa, supra, 4 Cal.4th 569, 592, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142.) Defendant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in eliciting defendant's testimony as to his sexual preferences, and in failing to object to the prosecutor's questions on that topic and to the admission of related photographs. Defense counsel reasonably could have decided to elicit defendant's testimony concerning his sexual practices and those of inmates generally in order to persuade the jury that any attempted sodomy was consensual. Having raised the subject, defense counsel reasonably may have refrained from objecting to the prosecutor's questions regarding defendant's sexual preferences, in that defendant's responses to those questions did not detract from the defense theory that the act was consensual. Defense counsel reasonably could conclude that the admission of the photographs, as part of a family album, on balance would be more helpful than harmful to the defense. Defendant has not demonstrated that defense counsel's acts or omissions constituted representation below an objective standard of reasonableness, nor has he demonstrated prejudice. ( People v. Lucero, supra, 23 Cal.4th 692, 728, 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 871, 3 P.3d 248.)