California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Rogers, C089779 (Cal. App. 2021):
On direct appeal, as here, this burden is stringent. When the record on appeal"' "sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged[, ] . . . unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation," the claim on appeal must be rejected.' [Citations.] A claim of ineffective assistance in such a case is more appropriately decided in a habeas corpus proceeding." (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267; see People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1254.)
Decisions about which jury instructions to request is an inherently tactical choice to be made by counsel. (People v. Padilla (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 127, 137.) Here, the trial court instructed the jury on general principles of law, including murder and premeditation and deliberation. Counsel could have reasonably concluded the
instructions given, which correctly stated the law, were adequate to address the issue of defendant's intent.
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.