Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court considers whether defense counsel provided constitutionally adequate assistance by deciding not to call a defense firearms expert whose opinion was that a gun found at another suspect’s residence was likely the murder weapon. The court concludes that counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment because she did not appreciate the significant difference between the defense expert’s anticipated testimony and the state expert’s testimony, and it affirms the post-conviction court’s order granting a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel provided constitutionally adequate assistance under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution by deciding not to call defense firearms expert Wong.
- Whether counsel's inaccurate understanding of the difference between Wong's testimony and the state's expert testimony rendered the tactical decision unreasonable.
- Whether Farmer demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant post-conviction relief.
Holdings
- A tactical decision satisfies the constitutional standard for adequate assistance only when it is grounded in a reasonable investigation and based on a reasonably accurate and adequate understanding of the relevant facts and law, including the likely costs and potential benefits of the contemplated action.
- A post-conviction petitioner establishes prejudice under Article I, section 11, when there is more than a mere possibility that competent counsel could have used the omitted or misunderstood information in a way that could have tended to affect the trial outcome.
Key quotations
“An appropriate consideration of the risks and benefits of a strategic decision requires a reasonably accurate and adequate consideration of the facts produced by an investigation.” (363 Or. at 699)
“Adequate counsel in this situation would have understood the different nature and greater strength of Wong's potential testimony as compared to Grover's and would have made a decision about whether to call Wong after considering that benefit.” (363 Or. at 700)
Factual background
Farmer was convicted of murdering Monterroso with a firearm after witnesses placed Farmer near the crime, identified him as the shooter, and testified that he made admissions. Farmer's defense focused on an alternative suspect, Baines, and a Rohm .38 revolver found at a residence where Baines lived; the state's firearms expert testified that the fatal bullet could not be determined to have come from that gun, while defense expert Wong concluded that it was likely the murder weapon. Although counsel had intended to call Wong, she did not do so, based in part on an inaccurate understanding that his testimony would be duplicative of the state's expert and on concerns about his qualifications.
Procedural history
Farmer was convicted of murder with a firearm, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. In post-conviction proceedings, the court found that trial counsel rendered inadequate assistance by failing to call defense firearms expert Wong and that the failure prejudiced Farmer, so it ordered a new trial. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed in a divided decision. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the post-conviction judgment.
Remand instructions
The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the circuit court's post-conviction judgment ordering a new trial. The opinion directed Farmer to prepare the appropriate form of order.