Court Opinion

ID: 9516252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:39:16.646035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:04.714878
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Givan, J.
I concur in the result in this case, but take exception with the language used by the majority opinion in dealing with the last contention of the appellant, that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.
*469The majority opinion unnecessarily infers that defense counsel may have been at fault for not conducting a cross-examination of the State’s witnesses concerning the tests made to determine whether the substance possessed by the appellant was heroin.
Quite often extensive cross-examination of an expert witness merely results in a further demonstration of his expertise, resulting in the making of the case for the side presenting him as a witness.
Following the expert testimony presented by the State, defense counsel had a decision to make concerning the nature of his cross-examination. He was in the best possible position to be the judge as to how far he should go in that regard. The course he took is obvious from this record. We must presume he believed, and we are in no position to argue, that an extensive cross-examination at that point would only have accentuated the State’s case. The State had a good case against the appellant, and the appellant was well defended. Insinuations to the contrary are uncalled for.