Opinion ID: 2623595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Other Asserted Instance of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Coffman)

Text: In addition to the instances of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel addressed above in connection with other substantive claims of error, Coffman contends her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in putting before the jury, during the guilt phase, otherwise inadmissible evidence of her involvement in the Kentucky and Orange County murders. Although she acknowledges counsel had a purpose for introducing the evidence â to show that Marlow had compelled Coffman to participate in murders for which she lacked criminal intent or malice aforethought, and in which she participated only as a result of battered woman syndrome â Coffman now urges this court to hold that, under the circumstances of this case, this totally misguided tactical decision constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring reversal of the judgment. `Reviewing courts defer to counsel's reasonable tactical decisions in examining a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [citation], and there is a `strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.' [Citations.] [W]e accord great deference to counsel's tactical decisions [citation], and we have explained that courts should not second-guess reasonable, if difficult, tactical decisions in the harsh light of hindsight [citation]. Tactical errors are generally not deemed reversible, and counsel's decisionmaking must be evaluated in the context of the available facts.' ( People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1254, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 468, 64 P.3d 762.) Introducing, in Coffman's defense case, the evidence of her involvement in the Kentucky and Orange County murders was a tactic that, while not risk-free, offered the hope of countering the prosecution's strong proof that Coffman was guilty of intentionally murdering Corinna Novis. To hold that counsel rendered ineffective assistance in doing so would merely be to second-guess this decision with the benefit of hindsight. We will not do so.