Opinion ID: 2089125
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Calling Certain Witnesses

Text: Appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective by calling the following witnesses to testify because their testimony was harmful to his defense. We note that such a claim of ineffectiveness may not be evaluated in hindsight. Commonwealth v. Williams, 537 Pa. 1, 28, 640 A.2d 1251, 1264-65 (1994) (citations omitted). Rather, all that we need determine is whether the course of action chosen by trial counsel at the time of trial had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client's best interests, and, if so, we will deem counsel effective and our inquiry ends. Commonwealth v. Buehl, 540 Pa. 493, 510, 658 A.2d 771, 780 (1995) (citations omitted). When viewed in its proper light, appellant's ineffectiveness claim must fail.
Appellant contends that counsel was ineffective for calling David Scott to testify because it was Scott's testimony which placed a gun in appellant's hand. Both Gary and Allen Carson had testified during the Commonwealth's case-in-chief that appellant had been standing between Bennet and Faison at the time of the shooting. Scott testified that he could not identify appellant as having been present at the scene. However, Scott also testified that the person standing between Faison and Bennet had a gun and fired some of the shots. Appellant argues that Scott's testimony was not necessary because the defense strategy was not that appellant was not there, but, rather, that appellant was merely present and did not participate in the shootings, and that therefore counsel was ineffective for calling a witness who offered incriminating testimony. Trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing on post-verdict motions that he called Scott as a defense witness because Scott was an eyewitness to the crimes and had repeatedly stated to trial counsel prior to trial that he did not recall appellant being present at the scene, including in the hallway just before the defense case was commenced. Trial counsel was also aware that Scott had told police that there had been three assailants and he had identified one of those assailants, Junior, from a photographic array, but that, despite having a better view of the three assailants than the other witnesses, Scott had not given any description that matched appellant and had been unable to identify appellant either at two line-ups, the preliminary hearing or trial as one of the assailants. [9] Given that two other eyewitnesses had already testified that appellant was standing between two of the co-conspirators, and was therefore in the heart of the action, it was reasonable for trial counsel to call a witness whose testimony could call into question the testimony of the other eyewitnesses. [10] Thus, Scott's testimony indicating that appellant was not the middle person was consistent with appellant's defense of mere presence. Trial counsel can not be deemed ineffective because the witness ultimately testified in an inconclusive fashion for the first time on cross-examination that the appellant could have been the person in the middle with a gun.
Appellant also contends that trial counsel was ineffective for calling Detective Kenneth Curcio to testify at trial. Detective Curcio testified that Allen Carson had given a statement shortly after the shooting in which he stated that appellant was standing apart from the other assailants at the time of the shooting and was merely leaning against a street pole. However, appellant contends that trial counsel should not have called Detective Curcio to read the statement because Carson stated in the prior statement that appellant was acting as a lookout. Given the choice between testimony which placed appellant in the midst of the group of assailants or testimony that placed appellant apart but speculated that he may have been acting as a lookout, it was reasonable for counsel to opt for the second alternative. Testimony that appellant was standing off on his own leaning against a pole was consistent with the defense of mere presence. Furthermore, regardless of Carson's speculations as to appellant's purpose in leaning against the pole, the statement was inconsistent with Carson's testimony at trial and therefore called into question the credibility of Carson's testimony in its entirety. Because counsel had a reasonable basis for calling Detective Curcio, he was not ineffective.