State v. Sloan is a direct appeal of a felony murder conviction. The defendant and two other people broke into the victim’s house to obtain money or drugs. During the burglary, the defendant shot and killed the victim. On appeal, defendant argues that the district court denied him his right to confront the witnesses against him, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the court should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. In an opinion written by Justice Thompson, the Court affirmed.
Felony defendants have a constitutional right to be present and to have the assistance of an attorney at all critical stages of a trial. The defendant asserted that this right was violated because he was not present at three hearings: a motion in limine to qualify an expert, a scheduling conference, and a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue. The Court had to decide whether each hearing was critical.
The key question is: when is a hearing “critical”? To be critical, the defendant’s presence must have a reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend himself. In other words, the defendant’s presence must increase his ability defend himself on matters of his guilt or innocence.
The most difficult of the three was the motion in limine to qualify a blood spatter expert. This was the only hearing which involved actual witness testimony. However, the testimony consisted merely of the background information of the proposed expert, which the district court needed in order to determine whether the witness was qualified as an expert. The testimony had nothing to do with the substance of the case. Defendant’s presence would have contributed nothing to this discussion, so this hearing was not critical.
Two other hearings were at issue: a scheduling conference, and a motion in limine. Neither included witness testimony. The Court easily concluded that neither was critical. The scheduling conferencet had no relation to the defendant’s innocence or guilt, and the motion in limine was a hearing on a question of law.
Defendant has also framed this issue as a violation of his rights under the Confrontation Clause. However, the Confrontation Clause is primarily a trial right, not a pre-trial right. Because the defendant had confronted and cross-examined the witnesses at his trial, there was no Confrontation Clause violation.
The defendant’s second argument was that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. Ineffective assistance of counsel occurs when the defense attorney’s representation is not reasonably competence and the incompetence prejudices the defendant. It is an important defense which can result in the defendant getting a new trial. But it is also a very difficult argument to win, especially on direct appeal.
Here, the defendant identified a number of arguments he believed his attorney could have made (but did not) that might have helped his case. But the trial attorney’s actions are presumed to be competent; the burden is on defendant to prove that no reasonably competent attorney would have objected further. The Court, examining each of the defendant’s arguments, concluded that a reasonable attorney could have chosen not to do the things the defendant claimed his attorney should have done.
The defendant’s final argument was that the court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. Defendants are entitled to instructions on their theories of teh case, but only when the evidence supports the theory. Here, defendant argued that one of the other two burglars had provoked him to shoot the victim. But for manslaughter to apply, the victim must be the source of the provocation. Since the evidence did not support the defendant’s theory, he was not entitled to the instruction.
Looking for a New Mexico appellate attorney? Contact us or give me a call at (505) 273-9379.