Background
- Grier was convicted of second degree murder with a firearm enhancement after trial in Washington.
- Defense proposed manslaughter instructions but withdrew them after discussing with Grier; the court asked whether she agreed, and she affirmed withdrawal.
- Jury was instructed on second degree murder and justifiable homicide; no lesser included offense instructions were given.
- Defense argued Grier lacked intent and offered self-defense/defense of others or resisting a felony as alternatives.
- Grier appealed; Court of Appeals reversed, finding ineffective assistance for withdrawing lesser included offense instructions.
- Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding acquiescence does not bar claims and that withdrawal was not ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether acquiescence bars ineffective assistance claim | Grier's agreement does not bar claims | Decision rests with defendant after consultation; withdrawal okay | Acquiescence does not bar claims |
| Whether withdrawal of lesser included offenses constituted ineffective assistance | Withdrawal deprived her of potential favorable verdicts | All or nothing strategy could be legitimate trial tactic | Not ineffective under Strickland |
| What standard governs review of defense strategy in this context | Ward three-part test controls; all or nothing risky | Strickland high deference; strategy permissible | Strickland governs; Ward is not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (established two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- State v. Workman, 90 Wash.2d 443 (1978) (two-pronged test for lesser included instruction entitlement)
- State v. Ward, 125 Wash.App. 243 (Wash. App. 2005) (three-pronged Ward test for all-or-nothing strategy)
- State v. Pittman, 134 Wash.App. 376 (Wash. App. 2006) (applied Ward test to lesser included instructions)
- State v. Hassan, 151 Wash.App. 209 (Wash. App. 2009) (retreat from Ward; legitimate all-or-nothing strategy under Strickland)
- Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (lesser included instruction as procedural safeguard; context differs)
- State v. King, 24 Wash.App. 495 (Wash. App. 1979) (early all-or-nothing view prior to Strickland)
- State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wash.2d 126 (2004) (defense strategy evaluated under reasonable performance)
- State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736 (1999) (significant tolerance for trial tactics under Strickland)