427 P.3d 170
Or.2018Background
- Victim Monterroso was murdered in 2001; petitioner (Farmer) was convicted based mainly on witness ID and admissions; defense advanced an alternative suspect, Baines, who resembled petitioner.
- A Rohm .38 revolver was recovered from a residence where Baines stayed; state expert Grover testified that the Rohm could not be determined to have fired the fatal bullet (inconclusive).
- Defense-hired expert Wong (forensic mechanical engineer) concluded the Rohm was "likely" the murder weapon; defense counsel intended to call Wong but ultimately did not; another consulted expert, Reid, was not called.
- At trial the jury heard Grover and other evidence suggesting the Rohm was inoperable; defense did not present Wong and petitioner was convicted; direct appeal affirmed.
- In post-conviction proceedings the court found defense counsel rendered inadequate assistance by failing to call Wong, concluding counsel misunderstood how much stronger Wong’s opinion was compared to Grover’s; court ordered a new trial.
- The Court of Appeals reversed; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming the post-conviction court's order for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Farmer's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel rendered constitutionally adequate assistance by not calling defense ballistics expert Wong | Counsel failed to appreciate that Wong would testify that the Rohm was "likely" the murder weapon; that misunderstanding made counsel's tactical choice unreasonable and prejudiced Farmer | Counsel reasonably investigated and weighed costs/benefits (concerns about Wong's qualifications and possible damaging rebuttal); tactical choice entitled to deference | Court held counsel was inadequate: counsel did not reasonably understand the material difference between Wong and Grover, so decision not to call Wong reflected lack of professional judgment and prejudiced Farmer |
| Whether a tactical decision is constitutionally adequate if counsel weighed costs/benefits but was mistaken about facts underlying the choice | Tactical choices must be grounded on a reasonable investigation and an accurate understanding of the facts; mere weighing is insufficient if based on inaccurate information | A reviewing court may consider alternative reasonable strategic bases for counsel's decision; focus should be on whether any reasonable counsel could make that choice | Court held counsel must not only gather information but also reasonably understand it; prior cases require accurate evaluation of facts before making tactical choices |
| Whether Wong’s testimony could have tended to affect the outcome | Wong’s opinion that the Rohm was "likely" the murder weapon would have strengthened the defense’s Baines theory and complemented other defense evidence; there is more than a mere possibility it could affect verdict | State argued evidence of the Rohm’s inoperability and other rebuttal made prejudice unlikely or implausible | Court held there was more than a mere possibility that competent counsel could have used Wong’s testimony in a way that tended to affect the verdict; prejudice shown |
| Standard of review for ineffective-assistance claims about tactical choices | Tactical choices get deference but are inadequate if reflecting an absence/suspension of professional skill and judgment; counsel must reasonably investigate and accurately assess costs/benefits | Emphasized deference to tactical choices and that a reasonable attorney could reach counsel’s conclusion here | Court clarified that deference exists, but counsel’s decision must be based on a reasonably accurate understanding of facts and law; reversed Court of Appeals and affirmed post-conviction relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Lichau v. Baldwin, 333 Or. 350 (attorney’s withdrawal of alibi was inadequate where counsel relied on incomplete investigation)
- Gorham v. Thompson, 332 Or. 560 (tactical decisions are entitled to deference when grounded in reasonable investigation)
- Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or. 236 (counsel inadequate when failing to obtain/assess expert evidence before declining one)
- Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or. 1 (courts should not indulge post hoc rationalizations; counsel’s stated strategic reasons are evaluated against the record)
- Green v. Franke, 357 Or. 301 (prejudice standard for state-constitutional ineffective-assistance claims)
- Stevens v. State of Oregon, 322 Or. 101 (tactical decisions must include evaluation of likely costs and potential benefits)