State v. McGinley, 2084-III

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Writing for the Court: MUNSON
• Citation: 573 P.2d 30,18 Wn.App. 862
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Robert P. McGINLEY, Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 2084-III,2084-III
• Decision Date: 29 December 1977

Page 862

18 Wn.App. 862 573 P.2d 30 STATE of Washington, Respondent,
v.
Robert P. McGINLEY, Appellant. No. 2084-III. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3. Dec. 29, 1977.

Page 863

[573 P.2d 31] Robert A. Kiesz of Cone, Kiesz, Gaukroger & Woolett, Wenatchee, for appellant.

Michael Tabler, Pros. Atty., Judith L. McCauley, Deputy Pros. Atty., Waterville, for respondent.

MUNSON, Chief Judge.

Robert P. McGinley appeals his jury conviction on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, i. e., marijuana. He challenges the competency of his trial counsel, the trial judge's actions in allowing recall of a

Page 864

state's witness, the chain of custody for the physical evidence, and the validity of the statutory prohibition against delivery of marijuana. We affirm.

At trial, evidence was produced from which the jury could find the following: Investigators Patterson and Babcock went to an apartment Mr. McGinley shared with Tom and Fred Nolop. Patterson, who had previously contacted the Nolops regarding purchase of marijuana, asked Fred Nolop if he had any pounds of marijuana left. Nolop replied he had sold the pounds but asked Mr. McGinley if he had any lids left; McGinley said he did. McGinley left the living room, and returned shortly thereafter with six lids of marijuana. McGinley handed the lids to Patterson, who inspected them and picked out the lids he wanted. Patterson laid the remaining lids on an arm table near the couch. Babcock made a similar purchase, holding the lid he purchased in his hand until he and Patterson left the residence. At the time they left, Babcock placed his lid under his shirt which Patterson observed. After they got into the car, Babcock took the lid out of his shirt and gave it to Patterson. After they returned to Patterson's residence, Babcock put his initials on the bag.

The state offered into evidence two bags of marijuana allegedly purchased by the investigators. Defense counsel objected to admission of the bags purchased by Babcock because Babcock's testimony did not establish the chain of custody. Initially, this objection was sustained. Subsequently, the prosecutor moved to reconsider, and the court allowed the state to recall Officer Patterson to establish the chain of custody. After additional testimony of Patterson outside the presence of the jury, the court indicated it would admit the exhibit. Substantially the same testimony was given in the jury's presence. Defense counsel's objection to the recall of the witness was overruled.

After Patterson's testimony, two other state's witnesses testified to the chain of custody and identified the substance. The defense counsel's motion to dismiss at the end of the state's case was denied. Mr. McGinley testified that

Page 865

he did not hand any marijuana to the investigators, but rather placed it on the table. He was watching TV at the time and didn't pay much attention to what was going on.

McGinley's counsel on appeal, who was not his trial counsel, first contends his client was incompetently represented at trial because trial counsel failed to call the Nolop brothers to testify and failed to object to the giving of certain instructions and the failure to give other instructions.

[573 P.2d 32] Court-appointed counsel, representing an indigent defendant, is strongly presumed to be competent; this presumption will be overcome only by a clear showing of incompetence derived from the record as a whole. State v. Piche, 71 Wash.2d 583, 430 P.2d 522 (1967); State v. Hess, 12 Wash.App. 787, 532 P.2d 1173 (1975), aff'd., 86 Wash.2d 51, 541 P.2d 1222 (1975).

As to the first allegation, the decision of trial counsel not to subpoena a witness to testify is generally deemed a matter of legitimate trial tactics. State v. Thomas, 71 Wash.2d 470, 429 P.2d 231 (1967); State v. Floyd, 11 Wash.App. 1, 521 P.2d 1187 (1974). We do not have before us any reason for defense counsel's failure to call the Nolop brothers, nor do we have anything to substantiate defendant's claim that the witnesses' testimony would have benefited him. On this record, we must presume the failure to call the Nolop brothers was an exercise of legitimate trial tactics.

As to the instruction allegation, it is...