Opinion ID: 1762379
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Seek Limiting Instruction

Text: Sasser next argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction when Jackie Carter's testimony was admitted. In the direct appeal, we concluded that we could not reach Sasser's argument that the trial court erred by not giving the jury a limiting instruction because Sasser did not request such an instruction. Sasser now argues that he was absolutely entitled to the limiting instruction, and that but for his attorney's failure to request it, the outcome of the trial, or the appeal, would have been different. In an affidavit that he filed in the postconviction proceeding, Sasser's trial counsel stated that at the time that Jackie Carter's testimony was admitted, his strategy was to avoid drawing more attention to its content. He suggested this strategy manifested itself in both his decision to decline cross-examining Ms. Carter and in his decision to refrain from seeking a limiting instruction. Sasser responds, however, by arguing that his attorney's claim that he made a tactical choice is belied by his decision to argue the absence of the instruction as trial error in the direct appeal. In its order, the Circuit Court resolved the apparent conflict by finding that counsel engaged in legitimate trial strategy when he chose not to seek the limiting instruction. Specifically, the court seemed to find the decision to not cross-examine Ms. Carter as corroboration that counsel's omission was a matter of trial strategy rather than error. The order states as follows: In this case, petitioner's counsel was faced with overwhelming evidence against petitioner, not the least of which was evidence that petitioner had attacked another convenience store clerk under very similar circumstances a few years earlier. Because petitioner's counsel was unsuccessful in keeping this evidence out, petitioner's counsel was forced to consider how to deal with it in front of the jury. In an effort not to highlight Jackie Carter's testimony, petitioner's counsel chose not to request the instruction that petitioner now alleges would have been requested. Counsel's strategy with respect to that instruction was the same as it was with respect to her trial testimony, which is evidenced by counsel's decision not to cross-examine her. Accordingly, the Circuit Court concluded that counsel's choice not to seek the limiting instruction was a matter of trial strategy that could not be a basis for a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have no cases that decide the issue of whether the failure to seek a limiting instruction upon the admission of evidence of prior crimes could be a matter of trial strategy, and therefore, not cognizable as an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. While the Circuit Court's conclusion is not without support from other jurisdictions, [1] the better approach is to resolve the issue according to the prejudice prong of the Strickland analysis. In United States v. Liefer, 778 F.2d 1236 (7th Cir.1985) for example, the defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking a limiting instruction when evidence of the defendant's prior bad acts was admitted. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in denying relief on the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, applied the second prong of the Strickland analysis in the following manner: (w)e need not decide whether ... counsel `fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,' (citation omitted) because, in light of the substantial evidence against (the defendant), there is no probability that the outcome of his trial was prejudiced by the alleged deficiency. See also United States v. Ramos, 971 F.Supp. 186 (E.D.Pa. 1997); Easley v. State, 978 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.App.1998). Accordingly, we must determine whether but for counsel's failure to request the instruction, the outcome of the trial would have been different. As we explained above, there was ample evidence, even excluding Jackie Carter's testimony, to support a conviction for capital felony murder with either kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, or attempted rape as the underlying felony. Under these circumstances, there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different if Sasser's attorney had obtained a limiting instruction. As for the allegation that the failure to request the instruction prejudiced Sasser on appeal, we have to evaluate the likelihood of success attached to an allegation that the trial court erred in refusing to give the instruction when it was requested. We conclude that such an allegation would not have led to a reversal because even if the trial court refused to give the instruction once it was requested, the error would have been harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence, excluding Jackie Carter's testimony, that was introduced against Sasser. See United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d 623 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. King, 897 F.2d 911 (7th Cir.1990).