Ed. 2d at 693 (1984)."Moore v. State, 659 So. 2d 205, 209 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994).
"'Objections are a matter of trial strategy, and an appellant must overcome the presumption that "counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance," that is, the presumption that the challenged action "might be considered sound trial strategy."' Moore v. State, 659 So.2d 205, 209 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (citation
This court has held that "[o]bjections are a matter of trial strategy, and an appellant must overcome the presumption that 'conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance,' that is, the presumption that the challenged action 'might be considered sound trial strategy.'" Moore v. State, 659 So.2d 205, 209 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994), citing Strickland [v. Washington], 466 U.S. [668] at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. [2052] at 2064-65 [ (1984) ].
(C.R. 805–08.) In Moore v. State, 659 So.2d 205 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), we stated: “Objections are a matter of trial strategy, and an appellant must overcome the presumption that ‘counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance,’ that is, the presumption that the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’
Johnson also testified that he shot the victim in defense of himself and Davis. Regarding his claim that the State failed to rebut his evidence that he acted in self-defense, this court has held that in order to sustain a claim of self-defense, it is necessary to establish: "`"(1) that the accused was in actual or apparent peril; (2) that the accused was unable to retreat; and (3) that the accused was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty."'" Peraita v. State, 897 So.2d 1161, 1211 (Ala. Crim.App. 2003) (quoting Moore v. State, 659 So.2d 205, 208 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994)). "Further, the question of whether the appellant was in actual or apparent immediate peril so as to justify the use of physical force in self-defense is a question of fact to be decided by the jury, after appropriate instruction by the court as to the application of the term."
In Moore v. State, 659 So. 2d 205 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994), we stated: "Objections are a matter of trial strategy, and an appellant must overcome the presumption that 'counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance,' that is, the presumption that the challenged action 'might be considered sound trial strategy.'
Moreover, "[t]he fact that counsel did not object at every possible instance does not mean that the appellant did not receive adequate representation." Moore v. State, 659 So.2d 205, 209 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994). The appellant's fourth allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is trial counsel's alleged failure to adequately investigate the question of the victim's use of illegal substances, to pursue the question whether the sexual intercourse was consensual, and to locate witnesses who could have testified that the appellant entered B.J.D.'s automobile at her request.
Verzone also argued that the evidence at trial was not sufficient to convict him because, he says, the only evidence against him was the uncorroborated testimony of his accomplices. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Verzone's conviction in an unpublished memorandum, finding that the indictment sufficiently apprized Verzone with a reasonable degree of certainty of the nature of the accusation against him, citing Moore v. State, 659 So.2d 205, 208 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994). See Verzone v. State (No. CR-01-0698, May 24, 2002), 860 So.2d 918 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002) (table).
"Brooks v. State, 456 So.2d 1142, 1145 (AJa.Crim.App.1984). As we further stated in Moore v. State, 659 So.2d 205, 209 (Ala.Crim.App.1994): " ‘Objections are a matter of trial strategy, and an appellant must overcome the presumption that "counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance," that is, the presumption that the challenged action "might be considered sound trial strategy."
"'[C]ounsel may reasonably avoid presenting evidence or defenses for a number of sound reasons that lead him to conclude that the evidence or defense may do more harm than good.' Moore v. State, 659 So.2d 205, 209 (Ala.Crim.App.1994).