From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Csernia

Supreme Court of Michigan
Dec 4, 1998
459 Mich. 913 (Mich. 1998)

Opinion

Nos. 111741, 111742.

December 4, 1998.


Summary Disposition December 4, 1998.

In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals. MCR 7.302(F)(1). On remand, the Court of Appeals, while retaining jurisdiction, is to remand the case to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (1973). Jurisdiction is not retained. Court of Appeals Nos. 205832, 205833.


I dissent from the order remanding this case to the circuit court for a Ginther hearing. Defendant in this case was tried on two counts of concealing or misrepresenting the identity of a motor vehicle with intent to defraud. His defense at trial was a claim that, unknown to defendant, another person, Paul Nicholas, had contemplated committing bank fraud and insurance fraud with the vehicle in question, and had stripped the vehicle of all its parts before abandoning it on defendant's property. Trial counsel presented this defense through the testimony of defendant. Trial counsel did not, however, call Mr. Nicholas as a witness in order to obtain a "confession" from Mr. Nicholas in front of the jury. Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are based not only on the decision not to call Mr. Nicholas, but on the additional assumption that Mr. Nicholas would admit his own crime and that he would exculpate defendant.

People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (1973).

Decisions whether or not to call a particular witness are decisions of trial strategy. People v. Mitchell, 454 Mich. 145, 162 (1997). Courts must engage in a strong presumption that counsel rendered effective assistance of counsel. Id. at 156; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984). Notwithstanding these well-settled principles, this Court has remanded the case for a Ginther hearing. Such a remand can only be supported by the premise that defendant was presumptively entitled to have trial counsel call every witness allegedly suggested to him by defendant, and that an evidentiary hearing is required in order for trial counsel to explain his decisions of trial strategy. This premise is not the law. Strickland and Mitchell, supra.

As the Strickland Court explained, proliferation of evidentiary hearings at which trial counsel's decisions of strategy are routinely questioned serve neither the defense bar nor the defendant.

The availability of intrusive post-trial inquiry, into attorney performance or of detailed guidelines for its evaluation would encourage the proliferation of ineffectiveness challenges. Criminal trials resolved unfavorably to the defendant would increasingly come to be followed by a second trial, this one of counsel's unsuccessful defense. Counsel's performance and even willingness to serve could be adversely affected. Intensive scrutiny of counsel and rigid requirements for acceptable assistance could dampen the ardor and impair the independence of defense counsel, discourage the acceptance of assigned cases, and undermine the trust between attorney and client. [ 466 U.S. 690.]

WEAVER, J.

I join in the statement of Justice BOYLE.


Summaries of

People v. Csernia

Supreme Court of Michigan
Dec 4, 1998
459 Mich. 913 (Mich. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Csernia

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. CSERNIA

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Dec 4, 1998

Citations

459 Mich. 913 (Mich. 1998)
589 N.W.2d 773