Opinion ID: 1224760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: defense counsel's allowing the state to blatantly discuss inadmissible prior bad acts of [appellant] without any objection prior to trial or during the trial, or motions for mistrial denied [a]ppellant of effective assistance of counsel.

Text: As we stated earlier in this opinion, the other bad acts evidence which was presented at the trial was admissible. Appellant's trial attorney did not, therefore, perform in a deficient manner by failing to object to its admission. As a related matter, Appellant argues that his attorney should have requested a limiting instruction after the evidence was admitted. Counsel may, as a matter of trial strategy, choose not to request a limiting instruction in order to avoid emphasizing the unfavorable evidence. Sybert v. State, 724 P.2d 463, 467 (Wyo.1986). One of the defenses employed by Appellant's attorney in this case involved challenging the credibility of Mr. Huskinson. An instruction limiting the scope of the other bad acts evidence may have given the impression that Appellant was trying to hide something with regard to the alleged prior deliveries to Mr. Huskinson. Such an inference may have given additional credibility to Mr. Huskinson's testimony. That would have been harmful to Appellant's defense; consequently, his attorney was justified in not requesting a limiting instruction.