Is there a reasonable tactical decision by counsel to limit the focus to appellant's own state of mind and self-defense?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Castellanos, A141623 (Cal. App. 2015):
Defense counsel made a reasonable tactical decision to limit the jury's focus to appellant's own state of mind and a self-defense theory. This is not a case, like People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1057, in which counsel mistakenly believed the instructions did not warrant an instruction on a lesser included offense. The invited error doctrine applies.
"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.
Other Questions
How have courts treated counsel's reasonable tactical decisions in examining a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel? (California, United States of America)
What is the state of the law on appellate counsel's duty to provide appellate counsel? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for failing to provide a reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained a more favourable result if counsel had failed to provide counsel with reasonable counsel? (California, United States of America)
What is the state of the law in Ontario and what is the effect of appellate counsel on appellate counsel? (California, United States of America)
Does appellant have to prove that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by defense counsel's failure to preserve or preserve the issue of limiting the right of his mother to make educational decisions for him? (California, United States of America)
What is the current state of the law in the context of the Court of Appeal's "tactical considerations" in deciding whether or not to second guessing tactical decisions reached by counsel? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)
Can counsel argue that counsel's tactical decisions not to object to a reference to gun possession were tactical considerations? (California, United States of America)
What is the current state of the law on "reasonable tactical decisions" in the context of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law where a trial counsel's argument to the jury that a lack of tactical purpose or satisfactory explanation for defense counsel's omission was a tactical error? (California, United States of America)
