Court Opinion

ID: 9786964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:06:40.602943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:50.137352
License: Public Domain

C. JOHNSON, J.,
Specially Concurring.
¶ 1 I concur in the Court’s decision to reverse this case for a new trial. I write separately to comment on some of the ethical challenges that cases such as this one present to defense counsel. Though not binding, American Bar Association (A.B.A.) standards have been considered by the Supreme Court to be guides in the determination of effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Under A.B.A. standards, “[d]efense counsel should consider all procedural steps which in good faith may be taken, including ... obtaining psychiatric examination of the accused when a need appears.” ABA Criminal Justice StaNdards R. 4-3.6 (1991). Also, counsel “should explain developments in the case to the extent necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.” ABA Criminal Justice Standards R. 4-3.8 (1991). If counsel believes that particular investigative or expert services are critical to a successful defense, but the client cannot or will not provide funds to pursue that defense, then counsel should or in my opinion must make a record on that issue. ABA Criminal Justice Standards R. 4-5.2 (1991). However, if the problem involves the financial inability to hire experts that are significant to preparing an adequate defense, the State is required to provide the necessary funds. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1092, 84 L.E.2d 53 (1985); 20 O.S. Supp.2002, § 1304(B)(19). Counsel should also make a proper record of such request and what the State did with same.
¶ 2 An effective counsel violation can result from the defense counsel’s failure to explore or present an established defense. Galloway v. State, 1985 OK CR 42, ¶ 14, 698 P.2d 940, 942 (holding that when defense counsel does not present evidence to support an applicable insanity defense, the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel). The Battered Woman Syndrome is such a defense, and expert testimony is often essential to explaining the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct. Bechtel v. State, 1992 OK CR 55, ¶ 26-28, 840 P.2d 1, 10; OUJI-CR (2d) No. 8-47. Here, to ensure an “informed decision,” counsel had a duty to sufficiently explain to his client the potential impact and significance of the Battered Woman Syn*170drome to the outcome of her case. Counsel should have made his client aware of the potential availability of funds through the State and emphasized the importance of obtaining such expert assistance to her defense.