Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence of prior murder

Text: Defendant contends that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to seek to reopen voir dire of the jurors on the subject of the prior murder of Ella Mae Fellows. As noted above, defense counsel may have sound tactical reasons not to question jurors on particular subjects. ( People v. Freeman, supra, 8 Cal.4th 450, 485, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249.) The jurors already knew of the prior murder, and defense counsel reasonably might have wished to refrain from reintroducing the subject of the prior offense. Defendant contends that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to (1) Deputy Sheriff Kushner's testimony concerning his postarrest interview with defendant, and the magazine and the photograph of the victim found in defendant's apartment, (2) the medical examiner's testimony concerning the state of the body, and (3) the photograph of a knife in defendant's apartment similar in size to the one that had inflicted the victim's wounds. This contention is based partially upon documents that we have declined to judicially notice. ( Ante, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 358, fn. 12, 25 P.3d at 575-576, fn. 12.) The claim that defense counsel failed to object must be rejected on appeal when the record does not establish why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, unless counsel was asked at trial for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there could be no satisfactory explanation. ( People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 186, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150; People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th 264, 266, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134.) Defendant has not shown that counsel was asked for and failed to provide an explanation for not objecting to this evidence, or that there could be no satisfactory explanation for counsel's decision not to object.