Opinion ID: 2631199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Offer Other Suspect Evidence

Text: Petitioner wanted Leatherman to offer other suspect evidence but Leatherman refused; the other suspect Stenson wanted his guilt phase strategy to revolve around was Denise Hoerner, widow of one of the victims. PRP at 38-39. Although designated an ineffective assistance of counsel issue here, this issue in another guise was already decided in Stenson. There this court cited the rule that [e]vidence connecting another person with the crime charged is not admissible unless there is a train of facts or circumstances which tend clearly to point to someone other than the defendant as the guilty party. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d at 734, 940 P.2d 1239 (citing Lord, 123 Wash.2d at 316, 868 P.2d 835). After reviewing the record, this court concluded, Nothing in the record before this Court, except for the unsubstantiated suspicions voiced by the Defendant, tends to point to anyone else as the murderer. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d at 734-35, 940 P.2d 1239. In his PRP, Stenson cites to evidence not in the trial record which indicates that Denise Hoerner made statements concerning killing her husband. PRP at 39-41. However, this evidence has been stricken by a September 16, 1999 order of this court. Petitioner is left without any new evidence tending to show Denise Hoerner's guilt. Even if the evidence were admissible, the facts of the case make it difficult to meet the burden of coming up with enough evidence to clearly point to Denise Hoerner as the guilty party. There is no evidence of any adult being present at Dakota Farms at the time of the murders other than Denise Stenson, Darold Stenson, and Frank Hoerner. Two of the adults had been shot in the head. Forensic evidence showed that the victim with a gun beside his head had probably been knocked unconscious before he was shot. The only other adult present was Stenson. Finally, Leatherman did investigate the possibility that Denise Hoerner committed the crimes. Leatherman asked Jeff Walker, his investigator, to stake out her house and look into a possible boyfriend she may have had. Dep. of Leatherman at 55. Leatherman subpoenaed her bank records to see if the account might suggest that she hired a hit man. Id. at 55-56. He concluded there was no evidence. Id. at 56. Walker confirmed that there was no evidence to suggest that Denise Hoerner was the killer and that he had investigated the possibility fully. Dep. of Walker at 26. Petitioner cites Ninth Circuit precedent in support of the position that the other suspect evidence in this case is admissible: We start with the observation that `[f]undamental standards of relevancy ... require the admission of testimony which tends to prove that a person other than the defendant committed the crime that is charged.' United States v. Crosby, 75 F.3d 1343, 1347 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting United States v. Armstrong, 621 F.2d 951, 953 (9th Cir.1980)). However, this rule determines what evidence is relevant; it does not require the admission of testimony barred by other rules of evidence, as is the case with the evidence stricken here. There is no admissible evidence suggesting that Denise Hoerner committed the crimes. We reject this claim.