State v. Felton
1983 Wisc. LEXIS 2612, 329 N.W.2d 161, 110 Wis. 2d 485 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The right to effective assistance of counsel requires that an attorney be knowledgeable of relevant statutes and adequately investigate potential defenses. Failure to do so, which prejudices the defendant by depriving them of crucial defenses, constitutes ineffective assistance requiring a new trial.
Facts:
- On January 2, 1979, Rita Felton shot her husband, Robert Felton, while he lay sleeping.
- Robert Felton had a long history of physically abusing Rita throughout their 23-year marriage, including during her six pregnancies, resulting in a miscarriage, broken ribs, and threats to kill her; he also choked and beat their children.
- In 1977, after a severe beating by Robert, the police department removed Rita and the children from the house, and she hired a lawyer and filed for divorce, separating for about ten months.
- Around September 1978, Robert's violence escalated again, with him striking the children and beating Rita, sometimes waking her in the middle of the night without provocation.
- On the day of the shooting (January 2, 1979), the Feltons had been drinking, and Robert was angry, yelling at Rita and physically assaulting their daughter, Rhonda, splitting her lip.
- After her children left the house, Rita was frightened, shaking, and felt “everything was just — it just looked — it was like a powder keg, like something’s gonna blow,” fearing Robert would wake up and kill her.
- Rita debated what to do while holding Robert’s .22 caliber rifle, concluding there was “no other way out without Robert killing her or the children,” and then shot him.
- After the shooting, Rita called the police and told an officer that she had been living like this for 23 years and was glad that it was over, and later said she had contemplated killing him for “a long time.”
Procedural Posture:
- On January 2, 1979, Rita Felton shot her husband and was subsequently charged with first-degree murder.
- On July 5, 1979, her attorney filed a motion to amend her plea to not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, which was later withdrawn on the day the trial began.
- After a lengthy trial, a jury in the circuit court for Portage county (James H. Levi, Circuit Judge) found Rita Felton guilty of murder in the second degree.
- Defendant's appellate counsel filed a postconviction motion for a new trial with the trial court, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing.
- Rita Felton appealed her conviction and the denial of the motion for a new trial to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of guilty but directed that the cause be remanded for the purpose of allowing the defendant to interpose the defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.
- The State petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review regarding the remand.
- Rita Felton petitioned for a cross-review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, asking for a new trial on all issues due to ineffective trial counsel.
- Both petitions for review were granted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defendant receive ineffective assistance of counsel when their trial attorney fails to inform himself of a statutory defense and inadequately investigates another potential defense, thereby prejudicing the defendant by depriving her of those defenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Heffernan, J.
Yes, Rita Felton received ineffective assistance of counsel because her trial attorney failed to inform himself of the heat-of-passion manslaughter defense and inadequately investigated the mental disease or defect defense, thus prejudicing her by depriving her of crucial defenses. The court applied the "ordinarily prudent lawyer, skilled and versed in criminal law" standard from State v. Harper, which requires counsel to adequately investigate and explore all avenues relevant to guilt or innocence, and base strategic decisions on a knowledge of all facts and available law. The trial attorney admitted ignorance of the heat-of-passion manslaughter statute (sec. 940.05(1), Stats.), which the court found was a "glaring deficiency" preventing reasoned decision-making and violating A.B.A. Defense Function Standard 5.1(a) (duty to be fully informed on facts and law). The court found prejudice because the facts, including a long history of abuse, would have justified a jury instruction on heat-of-passion, satisfying both the objective (how an ordinary battered spouse, like in State v. Hoyt, would react) and subjective (defendant's actual state of mind, overcome by extreme anger and terror) tests. Furthermore, counsel entered and withdrew the mental disease or defect plea without client consultation or proper investigation, despite expert testimony indicating such a defense was plausible (violating A.B.A. Defense Function Standard 5.2(a) and Roe v. State). The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial on all issues.
Concurring - Steinmetz, J.
Justice Steinmetz agreed with the majority's reasoning and result. He emphasized the public defender office's responsibility in assigning qualified attorneys, noting that the trial attorney was new to practicing law in Wisconsin, had little criminal experience, and had never tried a felony case, acknowledging he felt incompetent. He suggested that if the public defender's office had its present rules (requiring specific felony experience or certification for serious cases), these deficiencies might not have occurred. He concluded that appointing a truly qualified, experienced private attorney would have better served the interests of justice and been more economically efficient for the state, preventing the need for multiple trials.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the standard for effective assistance of counsel in Wisconsin, particularly emphasizing the duty for attorneys to be thoroughly informed on both law and facts, even for complex defenses like the battered spouse syndrome. It clarifies that "trial strategy" cannot legitimize decisions made out of ignorance of available legal options or inadequate investigation, thus setting a higher bar for attorney performance. The court's application of the objective test for heat-of-passion manslaughter, considering the unique circumstances of a "battered spouse" based on State v. Hoyt, provides crucial guidance for future cases involving domestic violence and self-defense by acknowledging the cumulative effect of prolonged abuse as provocation. The decision ensures defendants are not deprived of critical defenses due to counsel's failures, impacting how public defender offices manage case assignments and attorney preparedness.
