Opinion ID: 2508188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: failure to object to introduction of irrelevant victim impact testimony

Text: ISSUE (4). Whether trial counsel's decision not to object to two comments introduced into evidence concerning the victim's surviving husband constituted deficient performance. Petitioner argues his counsel was ineffective by not objecting to introduction into evidence of irrelevant comments concerning Ms. Couch's surviving husband, Richard Couch. During the guilt phase of the trial, Ms. Jolene Davis, a member of the Tacoma Fire Department, testified without objection that while she was at the crime scene Mr. Couch was extremely upset, distraught. [196] Ms. Diana Rodriguez, the Couches' daughter, testified without objection that her father's existing poor medical condition worsened after her mother was killed [197] and that he died on October 12, 1997. [198] To prove that failure to object rendered counsel ineffective, Petitioner must show that not objecting fell below prevailing professional norms, [199] that the proposed objection would likely have been sustained, [200] and that the result of the trial would have been different if the evidence had not been admitted. [201] To prevail on this issue, Petitioner must rebut the presumption that counsel's failure to object can be characterized as legitimate trial strategy or tactics. [202] Although deliberate tactical choices may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if they fall outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance, exceptional deference must be given when evaluating trial counsel's strategic decisions. [203] Petitioner has not established that the State was attempting to elicit improper victim impact evidence. Even assuming the testimony of Ms. Davis and Ms. Rodriguez constituted objectionable victim impact evidence, defense counsel's decision not to object can be characterized as legitimate trial strategy or tactics. Counsel may not have wanted to risk emphasizing the testimony with an objection. [204] Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption that a tactical reason existed for defense counsel not to object.