Court Opinion

ID: 9657646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:33:05.755156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:47.219566
License: Public Domain

ALMON, Judge
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s resolution of this most difficult question.
I agree with the holding of the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that the attorney, and not the client, has the exclusive right to determine and direct trial strategy. Decennial Digest, Attorney and Client, Key Nos. 88 and 92; 7 C.J.S. Attorney and Client, § 80B; 7 Am.Jur.2d, Attorneys at Law, § 120.. It is my view that this attorney exercised that right and did in fact determine the trial strategy of this case.
His decision to defend on alibi, even though against his better judgment, was necessitated by the fact that the appellant vehemently denied that he was at the scene of the crime and that he shot and killed the deceased. His attorney told him that he could make a good case of self defense, to which appellant replied, “Maybe we could but I wasn’t there.” Faced with this, the attorney had to make a decision on whether to defend on alibi or self defense and obviously he decided to go with alibi. This decision was in the purview of trial strategy which the attorney himself made with knowledge of his client’s version of the occurrence.1 Certainly his client’s version of the occurrence is probably the most important factor in determining trial strategy-
The defense of alibi and self defense are totally inconsistent. Self defense is in the nature of confession and avoidance whereas alibi denies the killing under a claim that the defendant was not at the scene. To introduce evidence tending to establish both self defense and alibi would necessarily weaken appellant’s case. It would be very unusual for trial counsel to be defending on self defense and the defendant, on alibi. Such would amount in all probability to no defense at all. This attorney did everything a diligent attorney should have done, save possibly making a motion to the court that he be relieved of his responsibility under the law to defend this appellant. Had such a motion been granted, another attorney would have had to be appointed and in all probability would have faced the same dilemma.
Let us assume for the purpose of argument that the attorney in this case had *581chosen to proceed upon the theory of self defense, no doubt this appellant would have claimed on motion for new trial that his attorney was derelict in not pursuing the defense of alibi. Appellate courts should not second guess attorneys on matters of trial strategy.
It is my view that appellant had the assistance of a very capable attorney who made the only decision he could have made under the circumstances. If indeed this appellant swore falsely, he must now bear the consequences.
I would affirm this judgment of conviction.

. The trial attorney testified on motion for a new trial as follows:
“Q. Did he ever tell you, ‘Do not use self defense in my case’ ”
“A. No, he did not.
“Q. Did he give you free reign [sic] to try the case any way you wanted to try it?
“A. Yes, he did.
“Q. And you knew about the knife, and you knew about the fact that the deceased had a high alcoholic content?
“A. I did.”