Ford v. State
| Decision Date | 28 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 19744,19744 |
| Parties | Priscilla FORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appellant, Priscilla Ford (Ford) was convicted of six counts of first degree murder, twenty-three counts of attempted murder, and sentenced to death. Ford filed a post-conviction petition in district court claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and various other allegations of error. The district court dismissed the petition. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Ford's petition.
On November 27, 1980, Ford drove her car onto a crowded Reno sidewalk killing seven people and injuring many others. She was represented at her trial for murder and attempted murder by Lew Carnahan (Carnahan) of the Washoe County Public Defender's Office. After considering various defenses, Carnahan decided that Ford's only plausible defense was insanity. He had two psychiatrists interview Ford and they found her to be incompetent to stand trial. On January 29, 1981, the trial court declared that Ford was mentally incompetent to stand trial and stayed all proceedings against her.
The district court found Ford competent to stand trial on August 6, 1981. At Ford's trial Carnahan attempted to prove that Ford was not guilty by reason of insanity. Four psychiatrists and nineteen other witnesses testified for the defense. Additionally, Carnahan presented extensive evidence concerning Ford's previous hospitalizations, arrest records, medical history, employment and education.
Carnahan decided not to interview all the victims and their families believing that this could not contribute to Ford's defense. He also decided not to use the defense that Ford's actions were caused by a mechanical defect in her car because he did not believe that the jury would accept such an explanation for Ford's behavior. Therefore, he did not have Ford's car examined until two months after Ford's trial began. The investigator who examined Ford's car found nothing wrong with it. An expert, hired by the district attorney, examined Ford's car shortly after the November incident and also found nothing wrong with it.
Ford was convicted of six counts of first degree murder and twenty-three counts of attempted murder. She was sentenced to death. This court affirmed the district court on both the guilt and penalty phases of Ford's trial. 102 Nev. 126, 717 P.2d 27.
Ford then filed a post-conviction petition in district court alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and various other defenses. The district court dismissed Ford's petition. Ford appeals that decision.
Ford contends that she was denied effective assistance of counsel. The standard to be applied to determine a criminal attorney's effectiveness when a client alleges ineffective assistance of counsel was enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.
466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. Strickland also held that overwhelming evidence of guilt is relevant to the question of whether a client had ineffective counsel. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. at 2069.
Ford contends that Carnahan provided ineffective counsel because he failed to adequately investigate the possibility that a mechanical defect in Ford's car caused her to lose control of it, drive five blocks on and off the sidewalks of Reno, kill seven people and injure many others. Ford stresses that Carnahan waited more than two months after the start of the trial to have the car examined by an investigator who was not an expert in mechanics.
Ford's contention that she had an accident and that Carnahan erred in not hiring an expert to investigate her car is without merit. All of the evidence points to the fact that Ford drove onto the sidewalks of Reno with the intent to kill pedestrians. This evidence includes inculpatory statements made by Ford both before and after the November incident and the statements of witnesses to the incident. There is no proof that Ford's car was defective. An expert hired by the district attorney shortly after the accident examined Ford's car and found nothing wrong with it. Finally, Carnahan had Ford's car inspected and nothing was found wrong with it. Carnahan reasonably believed that his only defense was the insanity defense and did not want to detract from it by asserting a meritless defense. Pursuant to Strickland, Carnahan made no error which deprived Ford of effective counsel in respect to his investigation of the accident.
Ford next argues that Carnahan provided ineffective counsel because he did not interview potential witnesses. Ford's argument lacks merit. First, Carnahan traveled to Idaho, Michigan, and New York to interview all witnesses who could help Ford with her insanity defense. He failed to interview witnesses to the November incident, victims and families of victims because he did not believe they could help Ford at all. This was a reasonable choice given the circumstances of the case. It is difficult to understand how interviewing these witnesses could have helped Ford. This is not the type of case where defense counsel might wish to destroy the credibility of the victims or impeach the witnesses. Finally, we note that Carnahan's decision not to interview all of the witnesses was a tactical decision. Tactical decisions are virtually unchallengeable absent extraordinary circumstances. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Echols v. Beneditti
...during trial. "Tactical decisions [of counsel] are virtually unchallengeable absent extraordinary circumstances, Ford v. State, 105 Nev. 850, 853, 784 P.2d 951, 953 (1989), and appellant fails to demonstrate any such circumstances here. Further, appellant fails to demonstrate that the venir......
-
McConnell v. State
...court has held that appellate counsel will be most effective when every conceivable issue is not raised on appeal. Ford v. State, 105 Nev. 850, 853, 784 P.2d 951, 953(1989). Jury instruction on weighing aggravating and mitigating McConnell argues that the district court erred in rejecting h......
-
Walker v. Neven
...witness' testimony. Such "tactical decisions are virtually unchallengeable absent extraordinary circumstances,["] Ford v. State, 105 Nev. 850, 853, 784 P.2d 951, 953 (1989), which appellant did not demonstrate. Given the evidence that appellant wore Jordache shoes and was discovered in the ......
-
Nika v. Gittere
...1, 8, 38 P.3d 163, 167 (2002) (observing that counsel's decision if and when to object is a tactical decision); Ford v. State, 105 Nev. 850, 853, 784 P.2d 951, 953 (1989) ("[T]actical decisions are virtually unchallengeable.").[Footnote: Nika only identifies two seated jurors who he contend......