Court Opinion

ID: 9546764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:35:08.27755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:50.131867
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting, with whom BROWN, Justice, Retired, joins.
I would affirm the conviction in this case. Had the challenged testimony been admitted over the objection of Zabel, I would agree that the trial court had erred. I am not satisfied, however, that the record in this instance truly discloses that a clear and unequivocal rule of law was transgressed in a “clear and obvious way.” (Emphasis added.) Certainly, what occurred in the courtroom did not induce counsel to complain.
In my judgment, the decision of the court in this instance really is designed to address an unarticulated claim of inadequate representation. Because I do not feel that I am in a position to second guess the tactical or strategic decisions of counsel in this particular instance, I conclude that, if Zabel was damaged by the failure of his counsel to object, it would be better to *364permit that issue to be raised in a proceeding which would involve a hearing to determine whether Zabel’s attorney had some valid ground for not raising an appropriate objection.
In this instance, the court is substituting its strategic and tactical judgment for that of defense counsel in the exercise of hindsight. I am not satisfied that the criteria for addressing plain error are met in this case and, for that reason, I would affirm.