Opinion ID: 2588599
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Failure to request contemporaneous uncharged misconduct limiting instruction.

Text: [¶ 36] The appellant asserts that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to request a limiting instruction contemporaneously with the admission of the uncharged misconduct evidence. We have said [c]ounsel may, as a matter of trial strategy, choose not to request a limiting instruction in order to avoid emphasizing the unfavorable evidence. Beintema v. State, 936 P.2d 1221, 1228 (Wyo.1997). Furthermore, where the district court had no duty, absent a request, to fashion a limiting instruction we have held that the decision to request, or refrain from requesting, a limiting instruction is a tactical decision that this court will not second guess. Chapman v. State, 2001 WY 25, ¶ 22, 18 P.3d 1164, 1174 (Wyo.2001). [¶ 37] As discussed above, the district court was not required to give a contemporaneous limiting instruction. Before trial, defense counsel was informed by the district court that it would give a limiting instruction if requested. Defense counsel was fully aware of which witnesses would be testifying to uncharged misconduct. Although defense counsel never requested a contemporaneous limiting instruction, the instruction addressing the uncharged misconduct evidence given during the instructions phase was drafted and submitted by the appellant. The appellant offers no evidence that the failure to request, or decision not to request, a contemporaneous limiting instruction was anything other than trial strategy to mitigate the effect of the uncharged misconduct evidence. As such, we find that the appellant fails to overcome the strong presumption that counsel rendered adequate and reasonable assistance in this regard.