Court Opinion

ID: 9717915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:12:55.018935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:56.093918
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in result).
I agree with Justice Morgan that this case requires reversal and remand for new trial. However, I am convinced that the basis for reversal should be Issue III, not Issue I.
Defense counsel’s conduct constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the state and federal constitutions. Defense counsel should have objected to exhibits 21 and 49 because they contained highly incriminating material. Even if we accept the State’s argument that counsel did not object because it was part of the trial strategy, no reasonably competent counsel would conclude that inclusion of the paragraph concerning the polygraph test would be helpful.
Assuming there is some defense strategy for allowing the jury to see portions of the statement, there is no conceivable reason the defense would want the jury to see the following paragraph:
“This statement is given with the understanding that a polygraph will be offered to me at a future date. Also that the State will not contest or object to the polygraph test being offered as evidence in court.”
The jury could draw only one inference from that paragraph. As stated by present defense counsel, the only inference the jury could draw was:
Satter claims he killed in self defense; since he didn’t object to Exhibit # 21, the state must have kept its promise and given him a polygraph; he could offer the test results without objection from the state; if he passed the exam he certainly would want us to know it; he didn’t offer polygraph test results; ergo —he failed the polygraph and his testimony concerning self defense is not true.
“That’s dynamite. Even if there were some legitimate trial strategy in having the jury see the bulk of Exhibit # 21, any reasonably competent counsel would have asked to have the quoted paragraph excised — and that request would have been granted.”
The effect of the polygraph paragraph was dynamite. It effectively destroyed the defendant’s defense of self-defense. It constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and requires reversal, remand, and retrial. Upon remand and retrial, the Issue I statements from the defendant should be excluded unless found to be voluntary.