Opinion ID: 1821648
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: ineffective assistance in presenting an inadequate opening argument.

Text: ¶ 28. Burns claims that his attorney's opening argument failed to advance the defendant's case. In his opening argument, counsel for Burns asked the jury to be open to the defense's theory that Phillip Hale and not Jo Jo Burns had killed McBride. ¶ 29. The State argues that Burns has shown no prejudice here and that counsel for Burns could have elected not to give an opening statement at all. Eakes v. State, 665 So.2d 852, 873 (Miss.1995); Cabello v. State, 524 So.2d at 318. As previously noted, decisions of trial strategy are presumed to be reasonable. And this Court has held that [T]he decision to make an opening statement is `a strategic one.' Manning v. State, 735 So.2d at 323, 347 (Miss.1999) citing Cabello v. State, 524 So.2d 313, 318 (Miss.1988) (quoting Gilliard v. State, 462 So.2d 710, 716 (Miss. 1985)). ¶ 30. Burns cites Woodward v. State, 635 So.2d 805 (Miss.1993). Woodward's death penalty was reversed in part because his attorney stated in closing argument at the sentencing phase that he could not ask the jury to spare the defendant's life based on the facts in that case. The Court found that statement to amount to ineffective assistance in that it severely prejudiced any chance Woodward had to receive a life sentence from this jury. Id. at 809. Woodward is distinguishable. Here, counsel for Burns made no statements which could in any way be considered prejudicial to Burns. ¶ 31. The argument here was not deficient. Counsel for Burns had a difficult situation in which the defendant had admitted his role in the crimes to several persons. Additionally, Burns's accomplice was going to testify against him. In light of the weight of the evidence against his client, counsel for Burns's opening argument was not deficient.