concluding that trial counsel=s conduct could have been part of a reasonable trial strategy, where trial counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony that allegedly violated the Confrontation Clause, and trial counsel=s reasons for his actions or intentions did not appear in the record
How later courts described this case
- concluding that trial counsel=s conduct could have been part of a reasonable trial strategy, where trial counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony that allegedly violated the Confrontation Clause, and trial counsel=s reasons for his actions or intentions did not appear in the record
- holding that “[w]hen an ineffective assistance claim alleges that counsel was deficient in failing to object to the admission of evidence, the defendant must show, as part of his claim, that the evidence was inadmissible”
- holding when an ineffective assistance claim alleges that counsel was deficient in failing to object to the admission of evidence, the defendant must show as part of his claim that the evidence was inadmissible
- holding evidence supporting retaliation finding sufficient where the defendant and witness had committed crime together and therefore, without a doubt, the defendant knew the witness had knowledge of defendant’s participation in a crime
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KELLER, P. J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
We have previously addressed the meaning of “prospective witness.’" In Morrow v. State, we held that the retaliation statute does not require the initiation of official proceedings for one to be a prospective witness. 1 Although the Court does not disturb this holding, it should be noted that its opinion today conflicts with some of the distinctions drawn by Morrow between prospective witnesses and informants. The Court effectively disavows any suggestion in Morrow that a certain level of cooperation or visibility is required for a person with relevant information to become a prospective witness.
I agree with the Court’s analysis and join the Court’s opinion.
. 862 S.W.2d 612, 613 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).