Dickens v. The State

Supreme Court of Georgia
627 S.E.2d 587, 280 Ga. 320 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To satisfy the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to call a witness, a defendant must present the witness's testimony or a legally recognized substitute, such as an affidavit, at the post-conviction hearing; counsel's own hearsay testimony about the witness's expected statements is insufficient to establish prejudice.

Facts:

Latoya Dickens and her husband, Otis Dickens, had a quarrel over her use of the family van.
After taking an hour and a half walk, Dickens returned to her apartment and punched her sleeping husband in the mouth.
Otis Dickens awoke, grabbed her, and pushed her onto a sofa.
Dickens went into the kitchen, retrieved a knife, and called 911 to state she was going to kill her husband.
She then kicked in the bedroom door to confront her husband, who retreated into the bathroom.
Dickens proceeded to kick in the bathroom door, struggled with her husband over the knife, and stabbed him in the left side, penetrating his lung.
Two minutes after her first call, Dickens called 911 again to report that she had stabbed her husband.
Otis Dickens died from the stab wound two days later.

Procedural Posture:

Latoya Dickens was indicted in Gwinnett County on charges of malice murder, felony murder, and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony.
Following a trial, a jury found her guilty of felony murder.
The trial court sentenced Dickens to life in prison.
Dickens filed a motion for a new trial, arguing her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure the attendance of an out-of-state witness.
The trial court denied the motion for a new trial.
Dickens (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

To prove the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on the failure to call a witness, may a defendant rely on counsel's hearsay testimony about the witness's expected testimony, or must the defendant present the witness's actual testimony or a legally recognized substitute?

Opinions:

Majority - Hunstein, P.J.

No, a defendant may not rely on counsel's hearsay testimony. To prove the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to call a witness, the defendant must present the uncalled witness's testimony or a legally recognized substitute. The court reasoned that counsel's testimony about what an uncalled witness was expected to say is inadmissible hearsay when offered to prove the truth of that witness's expected statements. Hearsay has no probative value and cannot be used to satisfy the second prong of the Strickland v. Washington test, which requires a showing that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defense. A defendant must offer more than mere speculation; either the witness must testify at the motion for a new trial hearing, or the defendant must introduce a legally acceptable substitute, like an affidavit. Because Dickens failed to do either, she could not establish the required prejudice. The court explicitly overruled prior cases that allowed counsel's hearsay testimony for this purpose.

Concurring - Benham, J.

Yes, a defendant should be able to rely on counsel's summary, but Dickens still loses. While agreeing with the ultimate decision to affirm the conviction, this opinion disagrees with the majority's reasoning. The concurrence argues that trial counsel's summary of an uncalled witness's expected testimony should be admissible as a 'proffer' of evidence, not to prove the truth of the testimony, but to show the court what evidence would have been presented to support the defense. The majority's holding improperly prohibits a trial court from exercising its discretion to permit such a proffer. However, even considering the proffered testimony, the concurrence concludes that Dickens failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome of her trial would have been different, given the other evidence presented. Therefore, her ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails on the merits, and the conviction should be affirmed.

Analysis:

This decision significantly raises the evidentiary bar for defendants claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness in Georgia. By holding that counsel's summary of expected testimony is inadmissible hearsay for proving prejudice, the court requires defendants to secure the live testimony or a sworn affidavit from the uncalled witness at the post-conviction stage. This creates a stricter, more formal standard that can be difficult for defendants to meet, especially if witnesses are reluctant, hard to find, or out-of-state. The ruling overrules prior, more lenient precedent, clarifying the application of the Strickland test and making such claims harder to win.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Dickens v. The State (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"