California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Stanley, A149507 (Cal. App. 2018):
"The standard for showing ineffective assistance of counsel is well settled. 'In assessing claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, we consider whether counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and whether the defendant suffered prejudice to a reasonable probability, that is, a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. [Citations.] A reviewing court will indulge in a presumption that counsel's performance fell within the wide range of professional competence and that counsel's actions and inactions can be explained as a matter of sound trial strategy. Defendant thus bears the burden of establishing constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel. [Citation.] If the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, an appellate claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be rejected unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. [Citation.] . . .' [Citation.] 'Failure to object rarely constitutes constitutionally ineffective legal representation.' " (People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 206-207.)
Defendant argues that the expert's testimony invaded the province of the jury by testifying, in effect, that the witness was telling the truth that defendant shot her. Defendant is correct that as a general rule, "an expert may not give an opinion whether a witness is telling the truth, for the determination of credibility is not a subject sufficiently beyond common experience that the expert's opinion would assist the trier of fact; in other words, the jury generally is as well equipped as the expert to discern whether a witness is being truthful." (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 82.) The
Page 8
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.