Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendanttrialwillprosecutor
defendantattorneylawyertrialtestimonymotionwillappellant

Related Cases

Drake v. State, 400 So.2d 1217
View Case »
Grimsley v. State, 678 So.2d 1197
View Case »
Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 91 L.Ed. 1903, 171 A.L.R. 1223
View Case »
Baltrip v. State, 30 Tex.App. 545, 17 S.W. 1106
View Case »
Edmunds v. Griffin, 177 Iowa 389, 156 N.W. 353
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

State v. Britson, 130 Ariz. 380, 636 P.2d 628

Facts

On July 25, 1977, Britson's wife moved into a trailer with two men due to his inability to pay rent. After learning of her infidelity and her refusal to return to him, Britson confronted the men at the trailer. He arrived with a gun, shot and killed one of the men, Anderson, and then forced his wife to accompany him to a hotel. Britson later turned himself in to the police, admitting to the shooting but claiming self-defense.

The testimony elicited at trial tended to show the following. On July 25, 1977, due to appellant's inability to pay rent, his wife moved into a trailer with two other men, Chapman and Anderson.

Issue

Did the defendant receive effective assistance of counsel, and were there any errors in the trial proceedings that warranted a reversal of the conviction?

The argument appellant pursues most vigorously is that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to prepare properly for trial.

Rule

A conviction will be reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel only if the representation was so ineffective that it reduced the proceedings to a farce or sham. Additionally, evidence of a defendant's willingness to take a lie detector test is inadmissible.

As we noted in State v. Marquez, 127 Ariz. 98, 618 P.2d 592 (1980), we have not retreated from the rule that a conviction will be reversed because of ineffective assistance of counsel only if 'the representation by a defendant's lawyer was so ineffective that the proceedings were reduced to a farce, sham or mockery of justice.'

Analysis

The court found that Britson was provided effective assistance of counsel, as there was no evidence that any alleged deficiencies prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The court also ruled that the prosecutor did not mislead the jury regarding the completeness of the tape recordings of Britson's statements, and the jury was properly instructed on self-defense and retreat.

We find appellant's argument that his trial counsel should have moved to exclude evidence of all of appellant's prior convictions for impeachment purposes to be persuasive. Appellant has failed to indicate, however, how this flaw in his counsel's representation prejudiced him, see Cooper, supra, or 'made a crucial difference to the case at the trial,' Watson, 120 Ariz. at 450, 586 P.2d at 1262.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence, concluding that there were no errors in the trial proceedings and that the death penalty was properly imposed.

The judgment and sentence of death are affirmed.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the conviction and death sentence, finding no merit in the defendant's claims of ineffective counsel or trial errors.

We find no indication in the record, nor does appellant assert, that had appellant's counsel moved to exclude use of the Illinois and Minnesota convictions for impeachment purposes, the trial court would have granted such a motion.

You must be