Foster

I have serious problems with the majority’s finding that no prejudice resulted from counsel’s failure to introduce a third person’s admission of guilt as exculpatory evidence. It is difficult to argue a statement from a third party which completely exculpates defendant could not create a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt. Thus, I am led to the inevitable conclusion this defendant was prejudiced by his counsel’s incompetent investigation and failure to introduce this exculpatory evidence.

The exculpatory evidence which was not introduced at defendant’s trial constitutes a “crucial” defense, as required by In re Saunders (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1033, 1049 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 472 P.2d 921 ]), “the possible defense so withheld must be termed a ‘crucial’ one.” A defendant is denied the effective assistance of counsel if, “ ‘by reason of counsel’s failure to perform the obligations imposed upon him, defendant is deprived of an adjudication of a crucial or potentially meritorious defense.’ ” (People v. Shaw (1984) 35 Cal.3d 535, 541 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 788 , 674 P.2d 759 ], italics in original.)

As held in People v. Mitchell (1893) 100 Cal. 328, 333 , it is always proper to introduce…

A jury convicted appellant of cocaine possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)); the trial court found true 1 two alleged state prison felony priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and sentenced appellant to a five-year state prison term.

Except for a claimed sentencing error, the sole issue on appeal and on habeas corpus petition is ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The proceedings have been consolidated for decision. We deny the petition and affirm the judgment.

Introduction

When there is no claim of insufficiency of evidence we typically synopsize the trial testimony with a perspective favoring the judgment (People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303-304 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 721 P.2d 110 ]) and largely ignore appellant’s version of events because the finder of fact rejected it. In this case we depart from our usual practice.

Only by considering appellant’s version of events in detail can we assess the effect of claimed trial counsel incompetence: failure to offer a coarrestee’s extrajudicial confession.

Factual and Procedural Background

On September 27, 1989, about 9:25 p.m., Los Angeles Police Officers Caballero and Katz were on uniform patrol…

WOODS (Fred), J.

A jury convicted appellant of cocaine possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)); the trial court found true [1] two alleged state prison felony priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and sentenced appellant to a five-year state prison term.

Except for a claimed sentencing error, the sole issue on appeal and on habeas corpus petition is ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The proceedings have been consolidated for decision. We deny the petition and affirm the judgment.

When there is no claim of insufficiency of evidence we typically synopsize the trial testimony with a perspective favoring the judgment ( People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303-304 [ 228 Cal. Rptr. 228 , 721 P.2d 110 ]) and largely ignore appellant's version of events because the finder of fact rejected it. In this case we depart from our usual practice.

Only by considering appellant's version of events in detail can we assess the effect of claimed trial counsel incompetence: failure to offer a co-arrestee's extrajudicial confession.

On September 27, 1989, about 9:25 p.m., Los Angeles Police Officers Caballero and Katz were on uniform patrol in an unmarked police…