Branham v. State
2017 MT 47N
Mont.2017Background
- Charles Branham was convicted in 2010 of mitigated deliberate homicide for stabbing an acquaintance; sentenced to 40 years without parole; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2013 Branham filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- Branham’s claims included: counsel’s failure to object to a detective’s blood-spatter testimony, failure to seek a curative instruction for prosecutorial remarks, failure to rebut the State’s pathologist with an expert, failure to call a defense investigator about a knife, and counsel’s misunderstanding/misstating facts about the knife’s location.
- The State obtained Gillham orders and the former trial attorneys submitted affidavits; the defense also submitted affidavits (including from its expert, Dr. Bennett).
- The District Court denied relief in a 42-page written order without an evidentiary hearing; Branham appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for opening the door to/ not objecting to Detective Baker’s blood-spatter testimony | Branham: counsel should have objected; testimony impermissibly intruded into expert opinion and prejudiced defense | State/District Ct: officer testimony as lay inference from training/experience is permissible; no unreasonable performance | Court: No ineffective assistance — counsel’s choice not to object was objectively reasonable |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a curative instruction after prosecutor’s credibility remarks | Branham: counsel should have requested curative instruction to cure prejudicial remarks | State/District Ct: objections were made and overruled; this Court previously held remarks were not improper | Court: No ineffective assistance — failure to request instruction was reasonable when no misconduct occurred |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling an expert to rebut State’s forensic pathologist | Branham: defense needed an expert to contradict State’s conclusions | State/District Ct: defense expert’s affidavit showed he would not contradict State; calling him would not change outcome | Court: No ineffective assistance — strategic choice reasonable given expert’s expected testimony |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not presenting defense investigator testimony about a knife in the apartment | Branham: investigator’s testimony would have supported alternative location/explanation | State/District Ct: counsel impeached witness and elicited knife description/location; calling investigator unnecessary | Court: No ineffective assistance — decision not to call investigator was reasonable strategy |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for misunderstanding/misstating Branham’s version and knife location | Branham: counsel’s errors about sequence/location prejudiced defense and affected appeal | State/District Ct: record shows Branham gave inconsistent versions; location detail irrelevant to dispositive issues | Court: No ineffective assistance — performance within reasonable professional range |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- State v. Dewitz, 351 Mont. 182 (2009) (officer may testify to inferences based on experience)
- State v. Zlahn, 376 Mont. 245 (2014) (officer testimony about inferences from training and testing permitted)
- State v. Frasure, 323 Mont. 479 (2004) (officer testimony permissible about defendant’s conduct based on experience)
- Hislop v. Cady, 261 Mont. 243 (1993) (officer experience admissible in accident-cause testimony)
- State v. Henderson, 330 Mont. 34 (2005) (fire investigator testimony about patterns admissible)