Jury instructions; Principle that a defense attorney’s affirmative expression of satisfaction with the trial court’s jury instruction waives any error; People v Chapo; Waiver versus forfeiture; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; Failure to make a futile objection; Prejudice

The court held that defendant was not entitled to a new trial on the basis of improper jury instructions, and was not denied the effective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to object to them. He was convicted of second-degree murder for stabbing and killing the victim during an altercation. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that he was entitled to a new trial because the jury instruction given for voluntary manslaughter was improper, noting defense counsel expressed satisfaction with them. In addition, “defense counsel’s stated satisfaction with the jury instructions waived defendant’s right to subsequently challenge the instructions regardless of whether he perceived the error with the voluntary manslaughter instruction at the time he expressed satisfaction with the instructions.” Finally, defendant “failed to prove defense counsel’s presumptive strategic decision not to contest the jury instructions was unreasonable.” Although the trial court erroneously read the wrong jury instruction, “the voluntary manslaughter instruction defense counsel agreed to was still an available instruction.” Further, defense counsel “may have strategically chosen not to request the alternative instruction because, if the jury had not been convinced defendant committed second-degree murder, having a voluntary manslaughter instruction that sounded almost identical to the second-degree murder instruction may have led the jury to acquit defendant altogether.” Affirmed.