State v. Grier
171 Wash. 2d 17
Wash.2011Background
- Grier was convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm enhancement; the Court of Appeals reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) related to not requesting lesser-included manslaughter instructions.
- Defense proposed manslaughter instructions; counsel withdrew them after discussing with Grier; no explanation given and Grier affirmed the withdrawal.
- Trial court instructed on second-degree murder and justifiable homicide; no manslaughter instructions were given.
- Grier admitted acquiescing to the withdrawal; the issue on appeal was whether that acquiescence barred a claim of IAC.
- Court held that withdrawal was not per se ineffective and that decision-making about lesser-included offenses involves counsel with client input; the case focuses on Strickland standard and the appropriate assessment of counsel’s performance.
- Court remanded for adjudication of remaining non-IAC issues after vacating the reversal based on IAC
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withdrawal of lesser-included instructions was IAC | Grier | Grier's counsel | Not IAC; withdrawal not inherently ineffective |
| Whether Grier's acquiescence bars IAC claim | Grier | Acquiescence bars IAC claim | Acquiescence does not bar IAC claim |
| Who decides lesser-included instructions and whether tactic is permissible | Counsel should be allowed strategic discretion | Decision rests with defense counsel after client input | Decision to include/exclude is a tactical choice; not per se deficient; defense counsel’s strategy reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (establishes two-prong test for IAC: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443 (Wash. 1978) (two-prong test for entitlement to lesser-included instruction; elements and evidence)
- State v. Ward, 125 Wn. App. 243 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (three-pronged Ward test for IAC in omitting lesser-included instructions)
- State v. Pittman, 134 Wn. App. 376 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (application of Ward framework to lesser-included instructions)
- State v. Hassan, 151 Wn. App. 209 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (rejected Ward approach as overly deferential to defense strategy in IAC)
- Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (lesser-included instructions context; foundational discussion cited regarding jury instructions)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009) (recognizes strong presumption of reasonable strategy in trial decisions)