Opinion ID: 2067611
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Object to Testimony from Prosecutor

Text: During cross-examination of a State's witness, defense counsel elicited testimony that his client had not been offered an opportunity to testify before the grand jury. The prosecutor took the stand and testified Roberts had been invited to testify but had declined on advice of counsel. Roberts claims his attorney was ineffective for not objecting when the prosecuting attorney, allegedly in violation of the Cannons of Professional Ethics, became a witness in the case. He further claims his attorney should have objected to the substance of the prosecutor's testimony  that Roberts was unwilling to appear before the grand jury  on the grounds it was inflammatory and prejudicial. First, any question about the propriety of the prosecutor's conduct is an issue for another forum, as it appears that the prosecutor's role as a witness in this case did not in itself harm Roberts. Second, we disagree with Roberts that his attorney erred in not challenging the substance of the prosecutor's testimony. Counsel testified at the post-conviction hearing that he did not specifically recall the prosecutor having testified. He stated he presumed that he did not object because sometimes objectionable testimony should not be challenged in front of the jury lest trial counsel win a battle, lose a war. Again, we do not review strategic decisions. Moreover, counsel invited the testimony that Roberts chose not to appear before the grand jury when he elicited earlier testimony to the contrary. Thus, an objection would have availed him nothing.