Opinion ID: 2240218
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Surprise Witness Statement

Text: Following opening arguments on the Monday morning of trial, the State disclosed a statement given the preceding Friday by witness James Burke. Defense counsel's motion to exclude Burke's testimony was denied. When Sparks raised the trial court's failure to exclude Burke's testimony on appeal, this Court found, it cannot be said that the State acted in bad faith or misled the defense. Appellant should therefore have moved for a continuance if he felt more time was needed to examine the statement. Sparks, 393 N.E.2d at 153. Noting that counsel had a full and fair opportunity to cross examine the witness, the Court held that it was not error to allow Burke's testimony. Sparks now charges that his attorney was ineffective for failing to request a continuance prior to Burke's testimony. At the post-conviction hearing, trial counsel indicated that he had some previous indication that Burke was going to testify, but that he thought the State deliberately intended to mislead the defendant by failing to produce Burke's statement. He moved to exclude Burke's testimony on this basis, rather than requesting a continuance. This may well have been a strategic move to eliminate the State's most damaging witness. The fact that counsel's strategy failed and this Court's found on review that a lesser remedy was available does not reduce such a tactical decision to the level of ineffective assistance.