Hammer v. State

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Denise Hammer’s petition for postconviction relief following her convictions for arson and making a false report to law enforcement. The court held that counsel’s failure to object to a trial court comment and failure to make an offer of proof did not prejudice Hammer under the Strickland ineffective-assistance standard.

Holdings

1. A defendant asserting ineffective assistance of counsel must prove both deficient performance and prejudice; when the prejudice showing is insufficient, the court need not decide whether counsel's performance was deficient.
2. Hammer was not prejudiced because the substance and conclusion of Schefsky's report were already before the court and jury, and the record already contained the relevant information concerning his qualifications; an offer of proof would not have changed the result.
3. Hammer was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to object because the trial court's effort to limit irrelevant testimony and avoid needless consumption of time was permissible, and any objection would have been meritless.
4. The presumption of prejudice recognized in United States v. Cronic did not apply because counsel did not entirely fail to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing and the alleged errors did not undermine the reliability of the guilty verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defense counsel's failure to object to the District Court's comment on Schefsky's qualifications constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
2. Whether defense counsel's failure to make an offer of proof after Schefsky was disqualified as an expert constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

affirmed