Opinion ID: 1810649
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: failure to file suppression motion prior to trial

Text: ¶ 51. Crawford alleges that it was ineffective for counsel to not file a motion to suppress prior bad acts and convictions. It must first be reiterated that counsel is given wide latitude in its choice and employment of strategies and defenses. Hiter v. State, 660 So.2d 961, 965 (Miss.1995). In addition, when the defense is insanity, either general or partial, the door is thrown wide open for the admission of evidence of every act of the accused's life relevant to the issue of sanity and is admissible in evidence. McLeod v. State, 317 So.2d 389, 391 (Miss.1975). ¶ 52. In this case, the insanity defense was employed and, thus, the door was opened to a wealth of evidence. Crawford has failed to show that any of the evidence that he gives general reference to would be inadmissible in such a context. As such, he has failed to show that counsel was deficient and this issue is without merit. See Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7.