Court Opinion

ID: 9643809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:40:57.2061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:04.129725
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting:
Without an evidentiary hearing to explore trial counsel’s alleged failure to take reasonable steps to interview known eyewitnesses, we cannot conclude his representation of appellant was constitutionally effective. I therefore dissent.
“It is the duty of the lawyer to conduct a prompt investigation of the circumstances of the cáse and explore all avenues leading to facts relevant to guilt and degree of guilt or penalty.” Commonwealth v. White, 303 Pa.Superior Ct. 550, 553, 450 A.2d 63, 64 (1982), quoting ABA Standards Relating to the Defense Function, § 4.1. Although counsel may have a legitimate strategy for not calling eyewitnesses at trial, “there is no basis for the decision not to interview them nor attempt to do so.” Commonwealth v. Mabie, 467 Pa. 464, 475, 359 A.2d 369, 374 (1976). “In a case where virtually the only issue is the credibility of the Commonwealth’s witness versus that of the defendant, failure to explore all alternatives available to assure that the jury heard the testimony of a known witness who might be capable of casting a shadow upon the *456Commonwealth’s witness’s truthfulness is ineffective assistance of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Twiggs, 460 Pa. 105, 111, 331 A.2d 440, 443 (1975). Here, appellant testified he acted in self-defense. New counsel alleges the unheard-from eyewitnesses would be helpful to this defense. Nothing on the record indicates whether trial counsel ever attempted to learn if these identified eyewitnesses would corroborate appellant’s version, or why trial counsel so summarily dismissed their potential testimony. The petition thus raises a factual question of trial counsel’s effectiveness requiring an evidentiary hearing. I therefore dissent, and would remand.