California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gray, E072218 (Cal. App. 2020):
"To make out a claim that counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance, 'the defendant must first show counsel's performance was deficient, in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. Second, the defendant must show resulting prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.' [Citation.] To make out an ineffective assistance claim on the basis of the trial record, the defendant must show '(1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding.' [Citation.]" (People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 958.)
Thus, it is not the law that defense counsel must always object to any inadmissible evidence. To the contrary, "'deciding whether to object is inherently tactical, and the failure to object will rarely establish ineffective assistance.' [Citation.]" (People v. Romero and Self, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 25.)
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.