Court Opinion

ID: 9718698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:31:03.070492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:00:36.216599
License: Public Domain

RICHARD H. EDELMAN, Justice,
concurring.
Although I agree with the remainder of the majority opinion, I disagree with its suggestion that this is almost a case in which prejudice could be presumed. As the majority opinion correctly reflects, the failure to investigate, interview witnesses, and call witnesses to testify was prejudicial expressly because witnesses existed who could and would have provided testimony favorable to appellant’s case. Had that not been established, harm would not have been demonstrated and could not have been presumed. Because a presumption of prejudice thus has no application to this case, the allusion to one in the majority opinion risks either discounting the importance of the prejudice prong or confusing a presumption of prejudice with a showing of it. Either way, an incorrect impression is conveyed.