Court Opinion

ID: 9784526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:47:27.042704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:55.771062
License: Public Domain

*36LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice,
dissenting.
I write separately because the majority appears to place a burden of proof on Appellant. The majority appears to say, in part, that the evidence is sufficient because “Grauerholz’s reaction was to immediately exclaim, T can’t believe you hit my boyfriend.’ And Sanders did not deny hitting Henninge.”1 If the majority requires Appellant to waive his Fifth Amendment right and deny the offense, I must respectfully dissent.
As to the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record reflects that Appellant made an offer of proof that a specific witness, Jeremiah Langen, would testify that he witnessed the event and that “[i]t was a complete accident.” Appellant argued that the failure of trial counsel to interview or call Langen, a material witness, was deficient performance on its face.
This court abated to allow trial counsel to explain his failure to interview or call Langen to testify. The majority states that we must presume “that counsel is better positioned than the appellate court to judge the pragmatism of the particular ease and that he made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment,”2 relying on Delrio v. State, a jury selection case questioning the wisdom of putting a particular juror on the panel.3
Here, the question is how can trial counsel justify not calling to the stand or even interviewing a witness who saw what happened and said that Appellant committed no assault. That is a far different issue than jury selection.
Instead of relying on caselaw that addresses jury selection, we should look at ineffective assistance cases in which trial counsel failed to investigate and failed to call witnesses to testify. We should not create an explanation for such failure and put it in the mouth of the nontestifying trial counsel.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has instructed us that
[i]n evaluating the potential impact of an alibi witness, we must also consider the relative strength of the State’s case. We compare the evidence presented by the State with the evidence the jury did not hear due to trial counsel’s failure to investigate.4
Here, Henninge did not remember what had happened to him. Everyone else guessed or speculated about what had happened. Only Langen actually saw what had happened, but trial counsel did not interview him. What possible trial strategy could involve not interviewing the only eyewitness?
Because I cannot think of any, I respectfully dissent.

. Majority op. at 32-33 (emphasis added).

. Id. at 34.

. 840 S.W.2d 443, 446-47 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992).

. Perez v. State, 310 S.W.3d 890, 896 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (citations and internal quotations omitted).