Opinion ID: 2631199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Rebut Negative Presentation of Relationship Between Stenson and His Wife

Text: Petitioner asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel to call witnesses to rebut the contention that he treated his wife like an object he controlled. PRP at 25. Petitioner cites two instances of damaging testimony. The first is from Denise Hoerner: Q.... And did the defendant ever mention to you why it was that you had to go to the Stenson house rather than Denise Stenson visiting you at your home? A. Yes. He told me just because my husband let me gallivant around town, he wasn't gonnathat his wifeher job was to be in the home and she was to stay there at the house. RTP at 739-40. The second is from Linda Stocker, a bank lending officer: A. [Denise Stenson] came outwell, after she joined the group and I was introduced to her then she asked if she could borrow his, his new pickup that was sitting there and takeshe wanted to take the kids and go to town was what she said. Q. All right. What did the defendant say about this? A. He said that yes she could take it but that if anything happened to his truck, she would be in a lot of trouble. Q. And what did she do when she was told this? Did she say anything or what did she do? A. She, she then disappeared from the group and went back into the house. Q. Did you ever see her leave in the pickup truck? A. No. RTP at 389-90. Petitioner says that witnesses were available to testify that Denise Stenson did not have to ask her husband for permission to do anything. PRP at 26. The State characterizes these two statements as relatively innocuous. State's Resp. at 51. The Stensons' relationship was a nonissue under the State's theory of the case. Id. at 50. Unlike its treatment of the Petitioner's lack of grief, the prosecution did not highlight this issue for the jury in its closing argument or anywhere else. Petitioner does not even raise the issue of, let alone argue for, prejudice. Therefore, Leatherman's failure to present rebuttal testimony on this point cannot be ineffective assistance of counsel because there has been no showing of prejudice to the Petitioner.