Does a defense counsel's failure to interpose an objection to a misstatement of the law constitute ineffective assistance of counsel?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hamilton, E065190 (Cal. App. 2017):
The issue, then, is whether defense counsel's failure to interpose an objection to the prosecutor's misstatement of the law constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant must "establish not only deficient performance, i.e., representation below an objective standard of reasonableness, but also resultant prejudice. [Citation.] (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 333.) "[P]rejudice must be affirmatively proved; the record must demonstrate 'a reasonable
Page 12
probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'" (Ibid.)
"[W]hen considering a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, 'a court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies . . . . If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice . . . that course should be followed.'" (People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1241.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
