Court Opinion

ID: 9526294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:15:13.490664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:22.914053
License: Public Domain

SÁBERS, Justice
(dissenting).
Phyle readily established numerous deficiencies in his counsel’s performance, thereby satisfying the first prong of Strickland. In fact, the majority opinion says it best:
Phyle asserts that a prime example of this ineffective assistance was counsel’s failure to object to the solicitation and admission of various bad acts evidence, including prior crimes, wrongs, etc., which Phyle allegedly committed. Specifically, examples of this testimony included a statement by Sheriff Long, a state witness, that Phyle was a suspect in “some other activity.” Also, testimony was elicited from Phyle’s brother Larry, (his accomplice in underlying action) of a prior crime which both were involved in and prosecuted. Another statement by Larry pertained to Phyle’s reputation and alleged criminal activity in the state penitentiary. Larry further testified that Phyle talked to him about Phyle’s having “criminal activity in his blood” and immediate desire to smoke marijuana. Larry further testified to his eyewitness account of Phyle’s beating his girlfriend. Phyle asserts that counsel’s failure to object to the testimony or failure to “vigorously object” was highly prejudicial to Phyle’s defense and were prime examples of counsel’s deficient performance. Phyle believes that this testimony allowed the State to portray Phyle as extremely dangerous, a repeat offender, and whose act of robbery was in conformity with his character, in violation of SDCL 19-12-3 and 19-12-5.
The majority opinion then proceeds to “assume that counsel’s] lack of objection” thereby openly inviting this offensive testimony was “a legitimate trial tactic.” I disagree on both points. In my view, it is wrong for this court to assume or to conclude the deficiencies were trial tactics or legitimate. The state failed to call the defense lawyer to the stand so there is not any proof that these deficiencies were even “trial tactics.” Even if we assume “impeachment” was the trial tactic, it is obvi*437ous that a reasonably prudent defense counsel need not let in otherwise inadmissable offensive material so that he can attempt impeachment. It is generally impossible to win the war on the wrong battlefield.
As to the second prong of Strickland, it is evident that this offensive, otherwise inadmissable testimony from the Sheriff and Phyle’s own brother was so damaging and prejudicial that Phyle could not have received a fair trial.