Court Opinion

ID: 9553895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:36:59.156898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:32.574096
License: Public Domain

MACY, Justice,
dissenting with whom BROWN, Chief Justice, joins.
I dissent. The failure to question Roger Gist does not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel to Steve Gist. It is not sheer speculation to contemplate what the product of an interview with Roger might have been. Roger pleaded not guilty to being involved in the transaction, so why is it reasonable to now say in hindsight that, if he were asked, he would have pleaded guilty to the delivery charge lodged against Steve? It is unreasonable to require defense counsel to question everyone involved in the same transaction to see if anyone will admit to the crime alleged to have been committed by their *345client, especially when everyone has already denied in open court that they were involved.
This is a classic case of newly discovered evidence. The majority in substance have held that, because Steve knew Roger delivered the marijuana, it was not new evidence when Roger admitted making the delivery. The majority confuse knowledge-with evidence. The evidence prior to trial was that Roger denied any involvement in the drug transaction. The newly discovered evidence is that, after Steve’s trial, Roger admitted making the delivery.