Opinion ID: 1366656
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Substandard Investigation

Text: Parsons has consistently maintained that he reacted violently to Ernest's sexual advances. He contends that this was the primary mitigating circumstance and that his counsel failed to adequately investigate the victim's homosexual tendencies. Specifically, he argues that his counsel should have requested an autopsy examination of the victim and used the private investigator provided by the State. While we fail to see how this evidence is mitigating, we will assume for purposes of argument that it is. Parsons cannot meet the prejudice prong of the Strickland test simply by identifying unexplored avenues of investigation. Rather, he must demonstrate a reasonable probability that further investigation would have yielded sufficient information to alter the outcome of his sentencing hearing. Aside from Parsons' testimony, nothing in the record indicates that the victim had homosexual inclinations. At the penalty hearing, Mrs. Ernest emphatically testified that her late husband had no homosexual tendencies. She stated that after their separation, her husband began seeing two other women and that he previously had an affair with a woman in Texas. In her sworn statement to the prosecutor, Mrs. Ernest stated that her husband had a girlfriend at the time she met him and that during their marriage he associated with another attractive woman whom he kissed and cared for very much. Bruce Opp, a friend of the victim, testified at the penalty hearing that homosexuality was the farthest thing from [the victim's] mind and that the victim dated other women after his separation from Mrs. Ernest. The victim's father-in-law testified that homosexuality was very distasteful to Ernest and something he did not want to be a part of. Finally, after investigation, the prosecution concluded that everything about the victim indicated that he was a completely heterosexual familyman. In light of this overwhelming evidence procured from Ernest's closest associates, it is unlikely that further investigation by defense counsel would have yielded information to the contrary.