Opinion ID: 1969489
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to examine the tribal court file.

Text: St. Cloud alleges that his counsel failed to examine a tribal court file which would have revealed information vital to his defense. A review of certain facts is necessary to an understanding of this allegation. St. Cloud had a history of alcohol abuse, had been in treatment on a number of occasions, and had periods of sobriety. He had previously been in a treatment program at the tribal alcoholic treatment center in Lower Brule. On the date of the alleged rape (April 16, 1986) St. Cloud came to the tribal alcoholic treatment center and spoke to a counselor he knew therethe victim (J.M.). St. Cloud had been scheduled to go to treatment in Omaha, but had failed to show up. St. Cloud talked to J.M. about getting him to the Omaha treatment center. St. Cloud told J.M. that there was a warrant out for St. Cloud's arrest because he had not gone to treatment, [5] and that the police would be looking for him. J.M. was unable to arrange for St. Cloud to get to Omaha on short notice, and offered to drive St. Cloud to a friend's house. The friend was not home, so St. Cloud directed J.M. to drive him to a remote area of the Lower Brule Indian Reservation known as Iron Nation. At some point during the drive, J.M. testified that she wanted to turn around and go back to Lower Brule village, but that St. Cloud ordered her to keep driving. St. Cloud's version was that J.M. took him to Iron Nation willingly, and engaged in consensual intercourse with him in an abandoned house. J.M. testified that St. Cloud brandished a knife, and that it was out of fear that she did not resist. (The knife described by J.M. was never recovered.) Following the rape, J.M. departed alone in her car. St. Cloud testified that he stayed at the house because it was his understanding that J.M. was going to make some phone calls to arrange for him to go to the Omaha treatment center; and by staying at the abandoned Iron Nation house, he would avoid arrest on the outstanding warrant. J.M. went to the home of an acquaintance, called the police and reported a rape. When the tribal police arrived at the area of the abandoned house, St. Cloud saw the police car, ran over to a nearby church and hid in the attic, which is where the police found him. St. Cloud testified that the reason he hid when the police arrived was because he had been told by the tribal judge (earlier that day) that there was an outstanding warrant, and that he did not think the police were there to arrest him for some other crime (rape). At trial, St. Cloud's counsel called the tribal judge and questioned her about the alternate sentence (jail time or alcohol treatment). The tribal judge testified at trial that she could not remember, you know, whether the jail sentence was still hanging as of the date of the alleged rape. On cross-examination of the tribal judge by the prosecution, the following exchange took place: Q: Mrs. Flute, as of April 16th then, you had given Richard some time on a sentence? A: Yes. Q: You didn't have any warrants out for him or anything like that? A: No. Q: You weren't planning on slamming him in jail the next day or anything[?] A: No, usually when they talk to me, I don't do it. This testimony clearly undermined St. Cloud's story that he understood there was a warrant out for his arrest, and that was why he was hiding. St. Cloud's defense counsel had not examined the tribal court file to see if there was, in fact, any warrant outstanding on April 16, 1986. Had the court file been examined a document with the following pertinent language would have been discovered: COURT ORDERJAILKEEPER TO THE KEEPER OF THE JAIL AT THE LOWER BRULE POLICE DEPARTMENT: Your [sic] are hereby ordered to take the following action: FINAL COMMITMENT The Defendant has been found guilty of violating Section 1-3-1a of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Penal code and is hereby sentenced to 20 days in jail. The sentence is to commence on the 4th day of April, 1986, at 8:00 A.M. and end on the 23rd day of April, 1986, at 8:00 P.M. Richard was given time to allow him to seek treatment at an alcoholic Treatment center preferably in Omaha, Neb. If he doesn't go as stated then he would have to serve the time in confinement. St. Cloud argues that the result of the conflicting testimony at trial regarding whether a warrant existed was that the case became not just St. Cloud's word against the alleged victim's, but also the word of a tribal judge. If anything, the tribal judge destroyed St. Cloud's credibility at a decisive time. Moreover, this destruction came because of St. Cloud's own counsel. It does appear that the testimony of the tribal judge served to undermine St. Cloud's credibility. At the habeas trial, defense counsel admitted that the documentary evidence found in the tribal court file would tend to support St. Cloud's reason for why he hid. We have held that, the right of an accused to the services of an attorney envisages that his attorney will investigate and consider possible defenses. Miller v. State, 338 N.W.2d 673, 677 (S.D.1983) (citing State v. Walker, 287 N.W.2d 705, 706 (S.D.1980); State v. Pieschke, 262 N.W.2d 40, 46 (S.D. 1978)). [6] [F]ailure on the part of counsel to conduct the necessary investigation into the facts may result in such prejudice as to justify the granting of relief. Walker v. Solem, 648 F.2d 1188, 1189 (8th Cir.1981) (citations omitted). [7] Our review of this record causes us to agree that St. Cloud's defense counsel should have made an investigation into whether or not a warrant (or similar document) existed. As pointed out by St. Cloud, his defense counsel did travel to Lower Brule to interview potential witnesses; it would have taken little additional effort to examine the tribal court file. The failure to make this investigation was not the result of reasonable professional judgment, thus satisfying the first prong of Strickland. However, this omission by counsel fails to satisfy the second Strickland prongthat the defense was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance. See Petrilli, 491 N.W.2d at 85. We agree that had the COURT ORDERJAILKEEPER document been discovered and offered at trial, this would have bolstered St. Cloud's credibility as to why he did not flee (but did hide) on the date of the alleged crime. However, admission of the document could also have brought prejudice against St. Cloud. This is because the document shows that he was found guilty of violating a section of the Lower Brule penal code, and that would have opened the door to the fact that he had assaulted his wife. This would have amounted to other bad acts type evidence, capable of leading the jurors to believe that St. Cloud was a man who had a propensity to be violent against women. This alone would have been very damaging to St. Cloud's defense. Thus, St. Cloud has failed to show that the result of the proceeding would have been different if his trial counsel had investigated the tribal court file.