Opinion ID: 1118970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at the Motion for New Trial

Text: A review of the facts and circumstances surrounding counsel's representation of defendant in the motion for new trial reveals, however, specific incidents where counsel failed to properly investigate or utilize vital evidence and testimony. At the Rule 32 hearing, a transcript prepared from a tape recording of an unsworn interview of Betty Fisher was admitted into evidence. Defendant and Betty were married for fifteen years, but lived together, off and on, for several years after divorcing in 1975. The interview was conducted in Iowa by defendant's current lawyer together with an attorney from the Arizona Attorney General's Office. The interview occurred after the defendant's appeal had been decided by this court. The interview with Betty painted a picture of Ann as a woman who had a history of violence, who ran around with other men, and who used drugs. After being arrested, defendant had told Betty that he confessed to protect Ann and that Ann had told James that she had took and hit her [Bailey] in the head with a hammer, and killed her. Betty also related some phone conversations and letters she had received from Ann. In all, Betty received some 20 to 30 telephone calls from Ann. Ann told Betty several stories about the killing, none of them implicating defendant as the killer. According to Betty, one story was that defendant was innocent because he was passed out when a Roger came in and murdered Bailey. According to Ann, Roger supposedly lived in the apartments and had it in for the landlady. By other accounts, Ann and Roger both were involved. After defendant's conviction and Ann's sentencing, Ann confessed to Betty that she had killed Bailey and gave a detailed description of the murder. Ann reiterated this confession to Betty on several occasions. Betty also related some conversations with Price about her coming to Phoenix to testify at trial, but that she did not have the money. Price recalled these telephone conversations with Betty. He remembered that they had talked about defendant's alcoholism and Betty's conversations with Ann. Price never sent Betty the money or a ticket as he thought her testimony at trial would be cumulative and unnecessary. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, Price presented only the unsworn confession of Ann. Ann did not appear as a witness; consequently, the trial judge's questions as to her willingness to testify at a new trial went unanswered. Nor did Betty appear as a witness to testify that Ann's confession was consistent with statements Ann had made to her. Counsel failed to present any proof supporting his argument that Ann's confession was not recanted, and therefore unreliable, testimony. The sixth amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial by protecting an adversarial process where the accused has counsel acting in the role of an advocate. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741-42, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1398-99, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 496-97 (1967). As an advocate, [c]ounsel ... has a duty to bring to bear such skill and knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial testing process. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. at 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d at 694. Because that testing process generally will not function properly unless defense counsel has done some investigation into the prosecution's case and into various defense strategies, ... `counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.' Kimmelman v. Morrison, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 2588, 91 L.Ed.2d 305, 325 (1986) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d at 695). We believe counsel failed in his required duty to use the skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary by failing to investigate and present necessary evidence at the hearing on the motion for new trial. Failure to do so was unreasonable given the nature of the evidence admitted at trial. For the second prong of the ineffective counsel test, prejudice to the defendant requires only a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Lee, 142 Ariz. at 214, 689 P.2d at 157, quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698. [T]he question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt. Id. at 695, 104 S.Ct. at 2069, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698. We have defined a reasonable probability as less than `more likely than not' but more than a mere possibility. Lee, 142 Ariz. at 214, 689 P.2d at 157. According to Strickland, a showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors, indicates a breakdown in the adversarial process which, consequently, undermines confidence in the outcome. 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068-69, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698. To determine the probability of prejudice, we must consider the weight of the State's case to determine the importance of the omitted defense evidence. [A] verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, 104 S.Ct. at 2069, 80 L.Ed.2d at 699. The state offered evidence that Bailey was killed in the defendant's apartment. No physical evidence was introduced incriminating defendant more than Ann. No substantial sum of money was discovered on defendant when arrested. The state's strongest evidence was defendant's confession, which merely reiterated everything the police read defendant from Ann's inculpating statements. Ann did not testify at defendant's trial, claiming her fifth amendment privilege, and thereby protecting her plea agreement. The newly discovered evidence would directly contradict the state's evidence. Counsel failed to interview crucial potential witnesses. Instead, he relied on oral arguments to support his theory of Ann's guilt without any substantive evidence. We recently addressed a similar failure to investigate claim: When we consider that the defendant does not have to prove his innocence, but only raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt, the evidence which should have been produced becomes even more important. State v. Tapia, 151 Ariz. 62, 64, 725 P.2d 1096, 1098 (1986) (counsel failed to interview alibi witnesses). Considering the shortcomings in the state's evidence, it is reasonably probable that presentation of witnesses at the motion-for-new-trial hearing by trial counsel could have resulted in a new trial for defendant. Failure to interview and call the essential witnesses needed to bolster defendant's case prejudiced his case. After reviewing the circumstances surrounding the representation defendant received at the motion hearing, we conclude that it fell below the required standard and that there is a reasonable probability that defendant's motion for new trial would have been granted if the defendant had received effective assistance of counsel. We affirm as to the other issues raised by the petition for post-conviction relief. The case is remanded to the superior court for a new hearing on the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. HOLOHAN, C.J., GORDON, V.C.J., and HAYS and FELDMAN, JJ., concur.