State v. Grier
246 P.3d 1260
Wash.2011Background
- Grier was convicted of second degree murder with a firearm enhancement; the Court of Appeals reversed on ineffective assistance grounds.
- Defense initially proposed manslaughter instructions but withdrew them after consulting with Grier; the court confirmed Grier agreed to withdraw.
- During trial, the jury was instructed on second degree murder and justifiable homicide, with no manslaughter instructions.
- Grier’s attorney pursued an all-or-nothing strategy to rely on self-defense/defense of others or lack of a weapon.
- The Court of Appeals found deficient performance under Ward/Pittman tests, reversing; the Washington Supreme Court reversed that decision.
- The Supreme Court held that acquiescence to withdrawing lesser-included instructions does not bar an ineffective assistance claim, but the withdrawal was not ineffective under Strickland; remanded for other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withdrawing lesser-included offense instructions constitutes ineffective assistance | Grier claims withdrawal was ineffective assistance | Counsel’s all-or-nothing strategy is legitimate trial tactic | No; withdrawal not per se ineffective; strategy reasonable under Strickland |
| Whether Grier’s acquiescence bars her ineffective assistance claim | Acquiescence should bar claim | Acquiescence does not bar claim under RPCs/ABA standards | Acquiescence does not bar ineffective assistance claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- State v. Workman, 90 Wash.2d 443 (1978) (two-pronged test for lesser-included instructions)
- Ward v. State, 125 Wash.App. 243 (2005) (three-pronged Ward test for counsel's failure to request lesser instructions)
- Pittman v. State, 134 Wash.App. 376 (2006) (applies Ward test to lesser-included offenses)
- Hassan v. State, 151 Wash.App. 209 (2009) (retreat from Ward; legitimate all-or-nothing strategy may be reasonable)
- Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (addressed lesser included offenses in different context; misapplied in ineffective assistance)
- State v. King, 24 Wash.App. 495 (1979) (early Washington view on all-or-nothing tactic)
- State v. McFarland, 127 Wash.2d 322 (1995) (limits on appellate consideration of trial-record facts)