Grigsby v. State
| Decision Date | 02 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 285S51,285S51 |
| Citation | 503 N.E.2d 394 |
| Parties | Ned GRIGSBY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Terrance W. Richmond, Milan, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Jay Rodia, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of Felony-Murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed in Grigsby v. State (1978), 267 Ind. 465, 371 N.E.2d 384.
Appellant filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief on April 17, 1978. On August 13, 1979, appellant filed an amended pro se petition which alleged that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated as a result of acts and omissions of his trial counsel. After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied appellant's petition.
To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must demonstrate that counsel's actions or inactions fell outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. Appellant must also demonstrate that counsel's errors had an adverse effect upon the judgment. Id.
When reviewing such claims, this Court will not speculate about what may have been the most advantageous strategy in particular cases. Isolated poor strategy, inexperience or bad tactics do not necessarily establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Hudson v. State (1986), Ind., 496 N.E.2d 1286. When an ineffective assistance claim is predicated on counsel's failure to interpose an objection, appellant must demonstrate that a proper objection would have been sustained by the trial court. Kimble v. State (1983), Ind., 451 N.E.2d 302.
Appellant contends that trial counsel's assistance was ineffective because he failed to object to the court's Final Instruction No. 11. Appellant failed to establish that if counsel objected to Final Instruction No. 11 it would have been sustained. An examination of the record reveals that Final Instruction No. 11 was a standard instruction, informing the jury that they were the judge of the law as well as the facts. Appellant makes no argument as to why this instruction was defective nor does our examination disclose any defect. We see no evidence of incompetence of counsel in this regard.
Appellant next contends that trial counsel's assistance was ineffective because he failed to object to the question posed by the prosecutor to Trooper Henry as to whether appellant had taken a polygraph examination.
Generally, the results of a polygraph examination are inadmissible in a criminal prosecution absent a waiver or stipulation by the parties. Evans v. State (1986), Ind., 489 N.E.2d 942. This rule also prohibits testimony that a party was either offered or administered a polygraph examination. Reese v. State (1983), Ind., 452 N.E.2d 936.
Although counsel's objection to the prosecutor's question posed to Trooper Henry might have been sustained, appellant has failed to establish that counsel's failure to object harmed his cause. The answer given by Trooper Henry was that appellant had not taken a polygraph examination. There was no elaboration on this statement. Again appellant makes no argument nor do we perceive any demonstration in this record that appellant was harmed by trial counsel's failure to object to the question.
Appellant next contends that trial counsel's assistance was ineffective because he failed to call a witness to testify regarding eyewitness' ability to observe appellant depositing decedent's body.
The decision whether to call a particular witness to testify on behalf of the defendant is a matter within trial counsel's strategy. Marsillett v. State (1986), Ind., 495 N.E.2d 699. Absent a clear showing of prejudice, this Court will not declare counsel ineffective for failure to call a particular witness. Id.
The record demonstrates that appellant was arrested with decedent's car keys and that appellant's automobile was observed near the place where decedent's body was deposited. Counsel may have determined that appellant stood a better chance without the risk of such testimony. Appellant failed to demonstrate that counsel's failure to call the witness harmed his cause.
Appellant next contends that trial counsel's assistance was ineffective because he failed to obtain a check allegedly cashed by appellant on the day of the crime.
Appellant must prove he was prejudiced by demonstrating that, but for counsel's unprofessional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ben-Yisrayl v. Davis
...Court will not declare counsel ineffective for failure to call a particular witness absent a clear showing of prejudice. Grigsby v. State, 503 N.E.2d 394 (Ind.1987). The bulk of Ben-Yisrayl's claim of prejudice rests on the fact that he was acquitted in two trials where evidence of a "light......
-
Clark v. Duckworth
...specific findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to enable this court to dispose of the issues on appeal. Grigsby v. State (1987), Ind., 503 N.E.2d 394, 397. However, as in Grigsby, we do not find that a remand for more specific findings is warranted since the facts underlying ap......
-
Smith v. State
...must show that if trial counsel had made the proper objection, the trial court would have had sustained it. See, e.g., Grigsby v. State (1987) Ind., 503 N.E.2d 394; King v. State (1992) 5th Dist.Ind.App., 598 N.E.2d 589, 593, trans. denied. The above evidence was admissible and relevant und......
-
Lopez v. State
...an objection, the appellant must demonstrate that a proper objection would have been sustained by the trial court. Grigsby v. State (1987), Ind., 503 N.E.2d 394, 396. As shown in Issue III, an attempt to show that a proper objection would have been sustained by the trial court would have fa......