Opinion ID: 1290783
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of an alias

Text: ¶24 Fonte claims his counsel's performance was deficient because she failed to object to repeated references to Fonte's use of the alias, Anthony Michaels, which Fonte employed upon his arrest and at his first court appearance. The use of this alias led to an obstruction charge, to which Fonte pled guilty on the first day of trial. Fonte points us to numerous places in the record where the prosecutor, in the course of examining Fonte's friends, referred to Fonte as Michaels and asked them if they knew Fonte's real name before the accident. They responded that they did not, but rather, knew him as Anthony Michaels or Rabbit. Law enforcement witnesses also testified that Fonte identified himself as Michaels on the day of the accident. ¶25 Fonte argues that [p]rudent defense counsel would have objected to the state's use of Fonte's alias, that the use of an alias was irrelevant to the charges, and that it was prejudicial because [c]riminals, not innocent people, use aliases. People who have an alias are hiding something. The State argues that Fonte was known to many of the witnesses as Michaels, and calling him Michaels at trial was the natural result of communicating with witnesses who knew Fonte as Michaels. In addition, at the post-conviction motion hearing regarding ineffective assistance, Fonte's trial counsel stated that she was concerned that the use of the alias might confuse or prejudice the jury, but believed that it was a better decision to have the State bring it out and us explain later that this was a name who all of his friends knew him as. She also said that she and Fonte had agreed to proceed this way because it would have been difficult to examine witnesses who knew Fonte as Michaels without using the name they knew. ¶26 In denying the post-conviction motion, the circuit court stated it would have been a tactical nightmare . . . to try to avoid the use of the [alias] and that efforts to avoid all mention of the name by counsel and in exhibits would have been confusing to the jury to the point of possibly being a ground for post-conviction relief had they proceeded that way. ¶27 We are not persuaded by Fonte's arguments, but rather agree with the circuit court. Trial counsel's explanation of her reasons for permitting the use of the alias, which was reached after consultation with Fonte, is reasonable. Given that Fonte was known by different names to different witnesses, having the alias known avoided confusion for the jury. We also note that the nature of this crime, which arose from an accident rather than a premeditated desire to injure someone, makes the argument that only criminals use aliases less persuasive, because intent was not an element of this crime.