Opinion ID: 1200475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to adequately prepare direct and cross-examination of witnesses.

Text: At trial, the defense called a doctor who saw appellant at the hospital after the victim's body was taken there. This witness was called to establish that appellant was not of his right mind after the shooting and, therefore, that the statements he made to the police shortly afterward could not have been voluntary. On direct examination, the doctor testified to his belief that appellant was coherent when he saw him at the hospital. The medical attendant who took appellant's blood alcohol content at the hospital was also called by the defense. He also stated, on direct examination, that he believed appellant was coherent at the time. Appellant argues that the testimony of the two men, both called on his behalf, was damaging to his defense and demonstrates defense counsel's failure to adequately prepare his witnesses. Appellant also argues that defense counsel was remiss in his cross-examination of a State witness who testified that the victim and appellant had a fight on the day before her death. Defense counsel testified at the post-conviction hearing below that he was guilty of asking one question too many and asking questions that perhaps should not have been asked at trial. The court below believed that counsel was probably overzealous in his questioning at times, but that the evidentiary reversals suffered because of such questioning were not due to inadequate preparation. Our review of the record leads us to concur in this conclusion. We do not believe counsel's performance in connection with these witnesses fell below the reasonableness standard established in Strickland.