McCarthy Larngar v. Ashbel T. Wall

Larngar v. Wall, 918 A.2d 850 (R.I. 2007) · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · April 5, 2007 · No. No. 2004-96-Appeal

Summary

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the denial of McCarthy Larngar's application for postconviction relief. Larngar alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on the failure to request self-defense or accident instructions, inadequate investigation and discovery, and interference with his right to testify, and also challenged the exclusion of testimony concerning counsel's alleged drug use. The court held that Larngar failed to establish deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington.

Court
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Writing for the Court
Robinson, J.; Williams, C.J.; Goldberg, J.; Flaherty, J.; Suttell, J.
Jurisdiction
Rhode Island
Decision date
April 5, 2007
Docket number
No. 2004-96-Appeal
Procedural posture
Applicant appealed the Superior Court's denial of his application for postconviction relief based on alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the exclusion of evidence concerning counsel's alleged drug use.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court will not disturb factual findings in a postconviction-relief proceeding absent clear error or a showing that the hearing justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence. Questions concerning whether constitutional rights were infringed, and mixed questions of law and fact with constitutional implications, are reviewed de novo, while historical facts and inferences receive substantial deference.
Parties
McCarthy Larngar v. Ashbel T. Wall, Director of Rhode Island Department of Corrections

Questions Presented

  1. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request jury instructions on self-defense or accident.
  2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective in investigating potential witnesses, making discovery decisions, selecting witnesses, inspecting tangible evidence, and preparing Larngar for trial.
  3. Whether trial counsel impermissibly interfered with Larngar's constitutional right to testify by attempting to dissuade him from presenting testimony counsel believed would be perjurious and by consulting the trial justice ex parte.
  4. Whether the postconviction hearing justice improperly excluded evidence concerning trial counsel's alleged drug use.

Holdings

  1. Counsel's failure to request self-defense or accident instructions did not constitute ineffective assistance. A defendant is entitled to an affirmative defense instruction when evidence raises a factual issue favorable to the defense, but no instruction is warranted when the evidence does not support it; on the record found credible by the hearing justice, self-defense was unsupported, and the evidence did not show that counsel's failure to request an accident instruction satisfied the applicable ineffective-assistance standard.

Factual background

After a nightclub fight, Larngar encountered Ashford Peal and others at a house party. A struggle involving a firearm occurred, and Peal was wounded; another person testified that a bullet passed through his shirt. Larngar was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and carrying a pistol without a license. In postconviction proceedings, he alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request self-defense or accident instructions, investigate and call witnesses, conduct discovery, prepare him adequately, and respect his right to testify, and he also challenged the handling of evidence concerning counsel's alleged drug use.

Procedural history

Larngar was indicted on assault with intent to murder and carrying a pistol without a license. A jury found him guilty of the lesser included offense of assault with a dangerous weapon and carrying a pistol without a license; the trial court denied his motion for a new trial and imposed concurrent prison sentences. His direct appeal was never perfected. He later filed an application for postconviction relief under G.L. 1956 § 10-9.1-1, which the Superior Court denied after a multiday hearing. The Supreme Court treated the denial order as a final judgment and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…