Rasul v. State, 2015 Ark. 118

Rasul was charged with first-degree murder for the October 20, 2007 shooting death of Henry Onukwube in a Little Rock park; physical evidence recovered at the scene matched two handguns seized from Rasul’s father’s home (.45 and 9mm casings).
Rasul testified he shot in self-defense after seeing Onukwube brandish a gun; other eyewitnesses largely contradicted Rasul, no gun was recovered on the victim, and multiple casings indicated both Rasul and his brother fired.
Jury was instructed on self-defense as to first-degree murder only (not as to lesser-included offenses); jury acquitted Rasul of first-degree murder but convicted him of second-degree murder and imposed a firearm enhancement. Appellate court affirmed.
Rasul filed a Rule 37.1 petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) counsel failed to obtain jury instructions on self-defense for the lesser-included offenses, and (2) counsel failed to call an expert on PCP’s effects.
At the Rule 37 hearing, trial counsel admitted he should have ensured the justification instruction covered lesser-included offenses and said he chose not to call a PCP expert after interviewing the medical examiner; a pharmacology expert testified about PCP’s potential effects. The circuit court denied relief and Rasul appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rasul)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure self-defense instruction as to lesser-included offenses	Counsel’s omission deprived jury of deciding justification for lesser offenses; acquittal on first-degree murder shows juror uncertainty	No prejudice: evidence did not support self-defense beyond Rasul’s self-serving testimony, so added instructions would not likely change outcome	Denied — no reasonable probability outcome would differ; circuit court’s no-prejudice finding stands
Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling a PCP effects expert	Expert testimony could corroborate that victim’s PCP intoxication made his behavior appear threatening, supporting self-defense	Trial strategy: medical examiner already provided testimony on PCP effects; another expert would be cumulative	Denied — counsel’s choice was reasonable and omission not deficient or prejudicial

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (prejudice from omitted jury instruction judged in light of all evidence)
Sparkman v. State, 373 Ark. 45 (defining reasonable-probability prejudice standard in Arkansas)
Turner v. State, 349 Ark. 715 (discussed but found inapposite on facts)
Phillips v. State, 344 Ark. 453 (addressed pretrial identification jury-role principle)