Ineffective assistance of counsel; Decision to not call defendant to testify; Self-defense; People v Hoskins

Holding that trial counsel’s decision to not call defendant to testify was not objectively unreasonable, the court rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The court found that he failed to “overcome the strong presumption that his trial counsel made a reasonably strategic decision when advising him not to testify. First, defendant’s testimony was not required to establish self-defense. Michigan law is clear that a defendant can ‘show his state of mind by circumstantial evidence to establish that he acted in self-defense’ and that he ‘need not take the stand and testify.’” The court added that “requiring a defendant to testify, even when claiming self-defense, would violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the defendant’s ‘right to have the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense.’” The court also concluded trial “counsel had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that the evidence he introduced, if taken by the trier of fact to be true, was sufficient to establish self-defense.” There was testimony that the victim (G) “was irate with defendant, and began cussing and yelling at him. [G] then threw the first punch and asked [witness-H] for a gun during the fight. At some point, [G] threatened defendant by saying that he’s ‘been waiting on to get him.’ This testimony provided sufficient circumstantial evidence for the jury to conclude that defendant feared for his life or great bodily harm during the fight, without [his] testimony.” His argument hinged on the lack of evidence about “his state of mind at the time of the stabbing. The jury heard a recording of defendant telling someone that he was unaware if the victim or [H] had a gun during the fight.” While he claimed in his Standard 4 brief that G had a gun during the fight, the trial evidence and his prior statement did not support that. If he “had testified, he risked contradicting his prior statement and being impeached, which could have undermined the circumstantial evidence that supported his self-defense theory.” Affirmed.