Opinion ID: 504692
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Probability of Change in the Outcome.

Text: 24 Even if we found that competent counsel would not have taken the approach defense counsel used in this case, we would affirm. We do not believe that petitioner satisfied the second prong of Strickland by showing any prejudice from counsel's alleged errors. 7 Petitioner failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that including defense counsel's omissions would have changed the outcome of the case. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. 25 Under Florida law, voluntary intoxication is a defense to first degree murder when the intoxicant renders the defendant incapable of forming the intent to commit the crime. See supra note 3. Even deciding every credibility determination in Harich's favor, we find that it is not reasonably probable that the jury would have accepted the intoxication defense. Harich's lawyer built a case around his client's claim of factual innocence. Through his own testimony, Harich recounted details about what he did, where he went, and when he dropped off the girls. Harich tried to convince the jury that he was not with Kelley and Miller when these crimes were committed. The jury did not believe him. 26 The evidence favoring conviction was the persuasive testimony of the survivor, Deborah Miller, identifying Harich as the assailant and stating that Harich appeared sober on the day of the crimes. In addition, evidence admitted at trial revealed that Harich operated his vehicle without any noticeable impairment. He also tricked the girls into lying down behind his van and shot them in the head with a gun he had the presence of mind to muffle. Finally, after shooting the victims, Harich sliced their throats to insure their death. 27 Petitioner claims that had counsel included a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have found him not guilty by reason of intoxication. We find this difficult to believe. The acts committed required a significant degree of physical and intellectual skills. See Keys v. Duckworth, 761 F.2d 390, 393 (7th Cir.1985) (per curiam). Moreover, to accept the intoxication argument, the jury would have had to disbelieve the testimony of both Miller and Harich. 8 The absence of a jury charge did not prejudice petitioner. 28 We also feel that there was not a reasonable probability of a different result had defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's misstatement of the applicable law during closing arguments. Essentially, the prosecutor indicated that because Harich's state of intoxication was voluntary, Florida law did not permit mitigation of first degree murder. Although the prosecutor incorrectly stated the law, see supra note 3, there was no prejudice. Defense counsel subsequently stated in his closing argument that the jury should consider Harich's alleged state of intoxication as mitigating evidence. The jury thus heard both positions on this issue. Because the trial judge correctly instructed the jury that closing arguments were not treated as evidence, there was even less chance of prejudice. An objection by defense counsel to the prosecutor's misstatement was unlikely to change the result for the petitioner. 29 It is also unlikely that presenting expert testimony on intoxication in the guilt/innocence phase of the proceedings would have impacted on the jury's determination of guilt. Telling the jury that Harich was not capable of forming the specific intent to kill, kidnap, or sexually assault the victims because he was suffering from alcohol idiosyncratic intoxication, would implicate him in the murder in contradiction of his own testimony. Defense counsel did use an expert during the penalty phase with apparently no impact on the jury's recommended sentence. 9 It is, therefore, not reasonably probable that presenting expert testimony earlier would have resulted in a different verdict. 30 We find that given the state of Florida law at the time of trial, even counsel who knew and appreciated the relevance of intoxication could have reasonably decided not to pursue such a defense in this case. We also find that petitioner did not suffer any prejudice thereby, as it is not reasonably probable that the jury would have accepted the intoxication defense petitioner suggests defense counsel should have offered. We do not believe that petitioner raised a colorable claim of ineffectiveness under Strickland. After a thorough review of the record, we hold that under the facts of this case, these allegations, if true, do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312, 83 S.Ct. 745, 756, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); Code v. Montgomery, 725 F.2d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir.1984). Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this claim.