Opinion ID: 2387024
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defense counsel's reference to defendant during his opening statement

Text: Defendant contends that during defense counsel's opening statement, counsel conceded defendant's guilt with respect to the charges of attempted murder of Shahbakhti and Weidmann, and thereby provided ineffective assistance of counsel. As explained below, the record establishes that counsel did not concede defendant's guilt, and that counsel's reference to defendant during his opening statement did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. In the course of his opening statement, defendant's counsel reviewed some of the factual allegations surrounding the charges. First, he described the robbery of Dean Bugbee at the Sav-on drugstore, highlighting circumstances that would have impeded a clear identification of the robber, and discrepancies between Bugbee's description of defendant's height and age and defendant's actual height and age. Next, he described the incident in front of the Vons market, in which James Shahbakhti was shot, stating that [a] fellow pulled up in a vehicle and drove through the complex. At first he noticed a man later identified as Stephen Redd walking in a different part of the strip mall over in front of a karate studio. [¶] Eventually after a few minutes Mr. Redd is observed walking in front of the Von's store. At that point in time the unarmed security guard accosted him, stops him. Apparently the subject is just walking through and he stops the person. [¶] The person says hi, leave me alone. The security guard demands he stay there. (Italics added.) Throughout the rest of this description, defense counsel referred to the individual as the person, the stopped person, that person, him, that subject, he, the subject, and the gunman. [15] Defense counsel then described the robbery and homicide at the Alpha Beta market, referring to the perpetrator as a man, the man, he, the robber, that subject, and the gunman. In support of his contention that counsel conceded his guilt, defendant relies in part upon the prosecutor's related comments during his opening argument. After reviewing how he had laid out his case during his opening statement, the prosecutor stated that he had listened closely to the defense's opening statement to hear what the defense would be. He stated that defense counsel carefully had avoided stating who had committed the crimes, but when counsel had reviewed the attempted murder counts, he started off by saying that Mr. Redd was by a karate studio and he came up and was talking to security guards, but then he changed what he said about the shooting. He saidhe started calling him this person and that person, never saying it was Mr. Redd.... [¶] ... He says the gunman rips off a number of shots. He never says that it's Mr. Redd. He always says it's a gunman, that person. The prosecutor then stated, Well, I was wondering are they saying it's the defendant or not. He then observed that in reviewing the Alpha Beta incident, defense counsel [n]ever [said] it was Mr. Redd. The prosecutor concluded, So I don't know what the defense is in this case. I don't know if they are saying now it's Mr. Redd now that all this evidence has come in or if they are still saying it's some robber, we don't know who it is .... The prosecutor then undertook to show you why what the attorneys say is not evidence, and reviewed various statements defense counsel had made during his opening statement that, according to the prosecutor, were not established by the evidence. Subsequently, in the course of reviewing the evidence, the prosecutor stated, So I think the defense is going to say he didn't do it. Viewed in context, defense counsel's reference to the presence of Mr. Redd in front of the Vons market was not a concession that defendant was the individual involved in that incident. Defense counsel had noted that the individual seen in front of the karate studio had been identified subsequently as defendant, and counsel's reference to Mr. Redd in the next sentence reflected that this was the same individual who was seen in front of the Vons market. Counsel then returned to his practice of referring to the perpetrator of the charged crimes without identifying him. As the prosecutor emphasized in his opening argument, the defense was careful not to state that defendant was the perpetrator. The prosecutor's arguments did not claim defense counsel had conceded guilt; rather, the comments highlighted what the prosecutor believed to be uncertainty with respect to the defense to the charges. Following the prosecutor's opening argument, defense counsel's argument emphasized flaws and discrepancies in the description and identification of the gunman in connection with the shooting in front of the Vons market, and continued to refer to the gunman generally, without identifying him as defendant. We also note that the jury repeatedly was informed that the statements of counsel are not evidence. [16] In these circumstances, it is doubtful that a reasonable juror would have understood counsel's statement to be a concession that defendant was the individual involved in the incident that took place in front of Vons market. In addition, even if a reasonable juror had understood the comment as conceding defendant was the gunman, the concession would have made no difference to the outcome, because the evidence identifying defendant as the perpetrator was overwhelming. Not only did Shahbakhti identify defendant, but Joseph Loya witnessed defendant's vehicle leaving the area; Officer King saw defendant in the vicinity where defendant's vehicle was parked; Detective Harper found bullets in defendant's apartment that matched the type used in the Vons market shooting, and the firearm found in defendant's vehicle matched the shell casings and bullets recovered at the scene. Therefore, counsel's performance in this respect was neither deficient nor prejudicial. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 104 S.Ct. 2052].)