Opinion ID: 734867
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Adequately Investigate

Text: 30 Duran argues that trial counsel's failure to investigate the meaning of the victim's toxicology report rendered her assistance ineffective. We agree. 31 The evidence at trial showed that Blow suffered from paranoid-type schizophrenia and had engaged in incidents of assaultive conduct. The evidence also indicated that Blow had been taking medication, principally Narvane, to control his condition. 32 The coroner who performed Blow's autopsy testified that she did not know whether the antipsychotic medication Narvane would be detected by the blood test that she had performed. The prosecution argued that, based on this testimony, the jury must assume that Blow had been taking his antipsychotic medication. Trial counsel did not investigate whether Narvane would be detected. 33 After trial it was discovered that Narvane would have been detected by the blood test performed on Blow. If this evidence had been presented at trial, the jury would have had medical proof that Blow was not taking his antipsychotic medication. From this, the jury could have inferred that Blow's paranoid-type schizophrenia and homicidal tendencies were not being controlled. This evidence would have bolstered Duran's claim of self-defense. 34 Trial counsel's failure to conduct any investigation whatsoever of the meaning of the coroner's toxicology report to determine whether the antipsychotic drug Narvane would be detected by the blood tests performed on Blow fell below the required reasonable standard of competency. See id. at 689. 35