Summary
The Tennessee Supreme Court considered whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on facilitation as a lesser-included offense. The Court held that the evidence did not support a facilitation instruction in this case, so counsel's failure to request one was not deficient performance. The Court nevertheless rejected the categorical rule that failure to request a lesser-included-offense instruction can never prejudice a defendant convicted of the greater offense, and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury instruction on facilitation as a lesser-included offense.
- Whether failure to request a lesser-included-offense instruction can prejudice a defendant convicted of the greater offense and support post-conviction relief.
Holdings
- Trial counsel's failure to request a facilitation instruction was not deficient performance because the evidence did not support a facilitation conviction and reasonable minds could not have accepted facilitation as a factual alternative.
- A trial counsel's failure to request a lesser-included-offense instruction can, under certain facts and circumstances, be prejudicial to a defendant convicted of the greater offense and may support post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance.
Key quotations
“We reject the “strict” approach, as it misconstrues our holding in Davis.” (Opinion at 13)
“Sequential jury instructions do not obviate the need for jury instructions on lesser-included offenses.” (Opinion at 13)
“There may be some cases where a trial counsel‟s failure to request a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense constitutes deficient performance prejudicial to the defendant, even though the defendant has been convicted of a greater offense.” (Opinion at 14)
Factual background
Bryant sold methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as Ecstasy, to Terrance Knowles in three controlled transactions arranged with assistance from a police informant. Bryant set prices, obtained the drugs, accepted payment, and delivered the drugs, although one transaction involved obtaining pills from a third party. At trial, counsel primarily argued entrapment and alternatively argued simple possession or casual exchange. The jury acquitted Bryant of one charged transaction but convicted him of two sales within 1,000 feet of a school; no facilitation instruction was requested or given.
Procedural history
Bryant was convicted of selling and delivering a Schedule I controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school; the delivery and sale convictions were later merged into two sale convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and later affirmed the post-conviction court's denial of relief, concluding that counsel's omission was strategic, the evidence did not support facilitation, and prejudice could never result from failure to instruct on a lesser-included offense when the defendant was convicted of the greater offense. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal, rejected the categorical no-prejudice rule, but affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief because the evidence did not support facilitation and no reasonable juror could have found that Bryant did not intend to sell the drugs.