Commonwealth v. Kolenovic , 471 Mass. 664 ( 2015 )

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
SJC-08047
COMMONWEALTH vs. ENEZ KOLENOVIC.
Hampshire. December 4, 2014. - June 23, 2015.
Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk,
& Hines, JJ.
Homicide. Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel. Practice,
Criminal, Capital case, New trial, Assistance of counsel.
Intoxication. Mental Impairment. Evidence, Intoxication.
Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court
Department on September 24, 1996.
The case was tried before Mary-Lou Rup, J., and a motion
for a new trial, filed on March 18, 2003, was heard by her.
Thomas H. Townsend, Assistant District Attorney, for the
Commonwealth.
Michael R. Schneider for the defendant.
HINES, J. On February 2, 1999, a jury convicted the
defendant, Enez Kolenovic, of murder in the first degree on the
2
theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty.1 The defendant's
conviction stems from the stabbing death of David Walker
(victim) during the early morning hours of September 16, 1996,
following an altercation between the two in a bar. While the
defendant's appeal to this court was pending, he filed a motion
for a new trial arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and
error in the jury instructions. We remanded the motion to the
Superior Court.2 The judge, who had been the trial judge,
granted the defendant's motion for a new trial based on
ineffective assistance of counsel. The Commonwealth appealed.
We conclude that the judge erred and reverse the order allowing
the motion for a new trial.
1. Background. a. Facts presented at trial. From the
evidence presented at trial, the jury could have found the
following facts. In the early morning hours of September 16,
1996, the defendant was riding in the back seat of his friend's
vehicle after a day spent consuming alcohol. His friend, John
J. McCrystal, was driving; the defendant and another friend,
1
The jury did not find the defendant guilty of murder in
the first degree on the theory of deliberate premeditation.
2
The defendant also moved for a reduction of the verdict
pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 25 (b), as amended, 420 Mass. 1502(1995). The judge denied the motion as to the request for a
reduction in the verdict and the claimed error in the jury
instructions.
3
Melissa Radigan, were seated in the back seat, and the victim
was sitting directly in front of the defendant in the front
passenger seat. The defendant and the victim had had an
altercation earlier in the evening. The group was on the way to
the defendant's house to continue drinking when the defendant
reached forward and slit the victim's throat. McCrystal stopped
the vehicle, and the defendant got out, opened the front
passenger door, and pulled the victim to the ground. The
defendant stabbed the victim multiple times while he lay on the
concrete.
The defendant spent the hours before the murder drinking
to excess. Beginning at approximately 12:45 P.M., the
defendant, accompanied by a friend, David Bruso, consumed at
least two beers and two double shots of one hundred proof
alcohol at a bar owned by McCrystal.3 At 2:30 P.M., the
defendant and Bruso left the bar, stopped at the liquor store
Bruso owned to obtain eight to ten single-shot bottles of one
hundred proof alcohol, and went to a barbecue at the local
Knights of Columbus hall. The two consumed the single-shot
bottles, and the defendant also drank more than six beers and
more than four shots of seventy-proof alcohol.
3
John J. McCrystal owned the building housing both his bar
and the defendant's family's restaurant; he leased the
restaurant portion to the defendant's family.
4
While at the barbecue, the defendant ran into Radigan, who
was attending the event with her mother and sister. For a brief
time, the defendant and Radigan left the barbecue and returned
to McCrystal's bar where they each had a drink. The two went
back to the barbecue, where they continued to drink and fell
down when they attempted to dance together.
The defendant and Radigan left again at about 9:30 P.M. to
return to McCrystal's bar. Later in the evening, the defendant
telephoned McCrystal to ask him to come to the bar to give the
two a ride home. McCrystal arrived and saw the defendant and
Radigan in the restaurant portion of the building. McCrystal
then entered the bar to wait. The victim arrived shortly
thereafter. The defendant and Radigan left the restaurant area,
entered the bar, and sat next to McCrystal. The defendant
ordered a cognac on the rocks, and Radigan and McCrystal both
ordered a beer. The bartender hesitated in serving the
defendant and Radigan because both appeared to "have been
drinking quite a bit." The bartender served the two only after
McCrystal said he was driving them home.
The altercation with the victim, a bar patron, began at
approximately 11 P.M. The defendant had thrown a drink on
Radigan. The victim reprimanded the defendant by telling him,
"You don't do that to a lady" and "You don't treat a lady like
that." The defendant approached the victim, repeating, "Don't
5
cross my path." The defendant challenged the victim to take
their dispute outside; after trying to ignore the defendant, the
victim agreed.
The two men continued their argument outside, frequently
bumping chests. As the bar was across from the police station,
a police officer arrived quickly and asked them to break it up.
The officer recognized the two men and told them he did not want
any "problems out here on the street." Each man responded that
there was no problem and returned inside. The defendant then
bought the victim a beer.
The parties were joined at the bar by Bruso, who had spent
several hours asleep in his vehicle after leaving the barbecue.
Bruso described the defendant's demeanor, noting that "his eyes
were very glossy. He seemed very intoxicated to the point of
almost being asleep, but not asleep. His eyes were open."
Although Bruso had seen the defendant intoxicated on many
occasions, he noted that "it was the drunkest I've ever seen
him." Another patron, Irene Grigas, who arrived after the
altercation with the victim, similarly noted that she had never
seen the defendant in that state. Bruso offered to give the
defendant a ride home but McCrystal told Bruso that he was
giving the defendant a ride. Bruso left the bar.
The bartender started to close the bar about 12:30 A.M. and
the defendant, Radigan, and McCrystal made plans to go back to
6
the defendant's apartment to "keep the party going." The victim
declined McCrystal's invitation to join them, opting instead to
assist the bartender in closing for the night. Before
departing, the defendant went to the restaurant side of the
building, where he remained for about five minutes before
meeting with the others. While inside, he put on a winter
jacket that he stored at the restaurant, even though the weather
was "nice" and the evening was an "Indian Summer September type
of night."
McCrystal carried some beer to his vehicle, where he sat in
the driver's seat to await the defendant. Radigan joined him
and sat in the front passenger seat. The defendant arrived;
when he was told the victim would not be joining them, he
returned to the bar. After a few minutes, the defendant emerged
from the bar followed by the victim. The defendant asked
Radigan to get in the back seat. Radigan complied and sat
behind McCrystal. The defendant directed the victim to sit in
the front passenger seat and he sat in the back seat behind the
victim.
McCrystal drove the short distance to the defendant's
apartment complex, stopping for a few minutes to talk to a
police cruiser that pulled alongside his vehicle. About one
hundred yards from the complex, the defendant leaned forward and
put his arm around the victim. McCrystal admonished them
7
because he thought the two were "fooling around." Radigan heard
McCrystal shouting and then saw the defendant lean forward
toward the victim. In the immediate aftermath of that event,
both McCrystal and Radigan felt and saw blood. McCrystal
stopped the vehicle.
The defendant pulled the victim from the vehicle and
continued to stab him. McCrystal shouted to the defendant to
stop and "get off him, you're going to kill him." The defendant
replied, "I think it's too late for that." McCrystal was able
to push the defendant off the victim when he noticed, for the
first time, that the defendant had a knife in his hand.
McCrystal recognized the knife as the type the defendant used at
his family's restaurant.
The defendant said to McCrystal, "You've got to be with me
on this." McCrystal responded, "What, are you crazy? . . . No
way." The defendant's face then became more serious and he ran
past McCrystal into the driver's seat of McCrystal's vehicle.
McCrystal attempted to reach through the window and shut off the
engine but was unsuccessful. In response to a resident's
telephone call, Scott J. Crevier, a Ware police officer, arrived
just as the defendant entered McCrystal's vehicle. While the
defendant was turning the vehicle around in the parking lot,
Crevier attempted to block the exit with his cruiser. The
defendant "narrowly missed" striking the cruiser and took off
8
out of the parking lot. After a high speed car chase, at times
approaching 110 miles per hour, police eventually were able to
apprehend the defendant, who resisted handcuffs until he was
sprayed with mace.
Police accompanied the defendant to the hospital at 2:55
A.M. to be treated for the after-effects of the mace. The
defendant smelled of alcohol and admitted to drinking a lot.
The emergency room physician did not perform any alcohol
ingestion evaluation because the defendant's "gait was normal,
his speech was clear, his coordination was intact, [and] he was
cooperative." Later, at the police station, a police officer
observed that the defendant's eyes were "bloodshot, glassy, and
watery"; his speech was "very slow"; and he "took a while" to
answer questions.
The victim was pronounced dead at 1:28 A.M. The medical
examiner who performed his autopsy opined that the victim
suffered a "major fatal wound" that was one inch deep and six
and one-half inches long and wrapped from the midline of the
victim's neck to behind his ear. The victim had a total of nine
knife wounds to his neck, head, chest, abdomen, shoulder, and
back.
The defendant presented an intoxication defense at trial,
seeking to persuade the jury that because of his long-standing
history of alcoholism and his excessive consumption of alcohol
9
in the twelve hours preceding the killing, he was not capable of
forming the specific intent required for deliberately
premeditated murder or to act with extreme atrocity or cruelty
in causing the victim's death. Three witnesses -- David Bruso,
Irene Grigas, and Dr. Robert A. Fox, Jr. -- testified in support
of the defendant's theory of defense.
As already noted, Bruso and Grigas recounted aspects of
the day of drinking and the defendant's demeanor while in their
presence. Dr. Fox, a psychiatrist with an expertise in
substance abuse, opined that because of the defendant's level of
intoxication at the time of the killing, the defendant's
thinking and reasoning functions would have been highly impaired
and his higher functions required to premeditate, form intent,
or to process what he was doing would have been impaired. He
opined that the defendant's blood alcohol content at the time of
the murder was likely between .26 and .3 per cent,4 and explained
the physiological effects of alcohol on the body, including on
the ability to think, reason, remember, make connections, and
concentrate, and the lowering of a person's inhibitions.
4
Two breathalyzer tests were administered to the defendant
approximately four hours after the murder. At that time, his
blood alcohol level registered .17 and .16 per cent. The
defendant's blood alcohol content at the time of the murder was
extrapolated from these two tests.
10
b. The motion for a new trial.5 In his motion for a new
trial, the defendant argued that trial counsel was ineffective
in "fail[ing] to fully investigate, present and argue evidence
of the defendant's severe neuropsychiatric disorders." The
judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and considered first the
"performance prong" of the Saferian test, or whether counsel's
performance fell "measurably below that which might be expected
from an ordinary fallible lawyer." Commonwealth v. Saferian,
366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974). The judge concluded that the defendant
met the performance prong of the Saferian test because "further
evaluation of the defendant's mental condition would have done
nothing to diminish and potentially much to enhance the only
possible defense available to the defendant."
As a preface to our analysis of the Commonwealth's claim of
error, we summarize the evidence presented at the hearing and
relied on by the judge in her decision.6 The evidence at the
hearing consisted of testimony from trial counsel; Dr. Fox, the
5
We note that the judge devoted an extraordinary level of
attention to the issues raised by the defendant's motion. The
motion for a new trial was filed on March 21, 2003, and after a
series of hearings, the motion, which was analyzed in two
comprehensive memoranda of decision issued on January 19, 2010,
and November 12, 2013, was allowed.
6
Because we do not reach the prejudice prong of
Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (1974), we do not detail
the evidence on that issue.
11
expert retained by trial counsel to conduct a pretrial
assessment of the defendant's history of alcohol dependence and
intoxication level; and affidavits from three experts, retained
after trial.
The defendant's trial counsel, found by the judge to be an
experienced and successful criminal trial attorney, was retained
by the defendant's family to represent the defendant at the
trial. The attorney met with the defendant ten or more times in
preparation for the trial. During those meetings, he "perceived
no evidence of mental illness or impairment" and received no
information from the defendant or his family to suggest any
mental abnormality. Recognizing, however, that the defendant
was highly intoxicated at the time of the murder, the attorney
retained the services of Dr. Fox and requested an opinion
whether, because of the defendant's alcohol consumption, the
defendant had the "ability to form the specific intent necessary
for first degree murder." Although the request was limited to
this question, counsel did not object to a full psychiatric
evaluation of the defendant.
Dr. Fox examined the defendant over the course of eight
hours and thereafter advised trial counsel that he was prepared
to opine at trial that the defendant was incapable of forming
the specific intent required for murder in the first degree. In
a letter written subsequent to the initial meetings with counsel
12
and a few days before trial, Dr. Fox stated his opinion to "a
reasonable degree of medical certainty . . . that [the
defendant] was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act
and was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of
law." He also informed counsel that he believed that the
defendant had a dual diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) and alcoholism, and suggested further testing by a PTSD
expert. Counsel, however, declined to seek further evaluation
of the defendant for PTSD after meeting with Dr. Fox several
times during the trial preparation and after considering all of
the other information available from his investigation into the
case. He decided, as a matter of strategy, to pursue only an
intoxication defense and to limit Dr. Fox's trial testimony to
the defendant's history of alcohol dependence and intoxication
at the time of the murder.
Counsel's explanation for this strategic choice was that he
believed, based on his experience as a criminal defense lawyer,
"that juries almost never accept an insanity defense." The
attorney added that (1) he believed a dual defense based on both
intoxication and PTSD could cause a loss of credibility with the
jury and the PTSD defense could water down the substantial
evidence he had developed to support an intoxication defense;
and (2) he was skeptical of some of Dr. Fox's conclusions and
thought the PTSD defense was based on a "shaky factual
13
foundation." He believed there was a "real chance that [the
intoxication] evidence was strong enough to win a manslaughter
verdict" because it was based on undisputed evidence
demonstrating the defendant's lengthy history of alcoholism and
extreme amount of alcohol he had consumed at the time of the
killing. He noted as well his concern that a defense of lack of
criminal responsibility would allow the Commonwealth's experts
to have access to the defendant and vitiate the advantage of the
overwhelming evidence of the defendant's intoxication.7
The judge credited the attorney's explanation of his
strategic decisions and his recollection that he had discussed
the decision with the defendant, who had agreed with counsel's
strategy. In addition, she found that defense counsel "did not
ignore Dr. Fox's opinion that the defendant suffered as well
from PTSD, [but] he made a tactical decision that the PTSD
defense suggested by Dr. Fox was unlikely to succeed." The
judge also found that trial counsel "vigorously argued all the
evidence [and] succeeded in part, as the jury found the
defendant not guilty of murder by deliberate premeditation." At
the same time, she noted that counsel had only a rudimentary
7
The judge noted that only McCrystal disputed the extent of
the defendant's intoxication but observed that McCrystal had a
"clear motive" to minimize because of the possibility of a civil
lawsuit as the owner of the bar where the defendant consumed
alcohol in the hours before the killing.
14
understanding of PTSD and had based his decision to forgo
further investigation of the condition on his personal
assessment of the defendant during their meetings. In addition,
she noted defense counsel's "general lack of faith in psychiatry
. . . as a defense in criminal trials."
Dr. Fox confirmed that he had reported his PTSD diagnosis
to trial counsel in advance of the trial and advised the
attorney to pursue further evaluation of that condition. Dr.
Fox recalled that at one of the trial preparation meetings,
trial counsel advised him that he intended to present only the
intoxication defense and explained that his questions during the
trial would be limited to that issue. In recounting his
pretrial involvement with trial counsel, however, Dr. Fox
criticized counsel's strategic choices and testified that he
disagreed with counsel's intoxication defense strategy. He
expressed "frustrat[ion]" that he did not have the "opportunity"
for a full discussion of the issue with counsel. As to this
point, however, the judge found that Dr. Fox told defense
counsel that "PTSD might be a defense worth pursuing" and that
"further evaluation and objective testing would be useful if the
defense were to be presented in court" (emphases added). The
judge made no finding that Dr. Fox ever expressed to counsel his
disagreement with the trial strategy. As the trial record
15
demonstrates, Dr. Fox testified at trial in accordance with
trial counsel's defense strategy.
The three experts, in their affidavits based on extensive
posttrial testing and interviews with defendant's family,
definitively diagnosed the defendant with PTSD and other mental
diseases, including alcohol dependency, brain injury,
intermittent explosive disorder, dysthymic disorder, social
phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, and several unspecified
personality disorders.8 All of these experts opined that
because of the defendant's multiple mental disorders, he lacked
the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and
to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
2. Discussion. a. Standard of review. "In the absence of
constitutional error, a motion for a new trial is addressed to
the sound discretion of the trial judge," Commonwealth v. Smith,
381 Mass. 141, 142 (1980), who may grant a new trial "if it
appears that justice may not have been done." Mass. R. Crim. P.
30 (b), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001). Judges are to
apply the rule 30 (b) standard rigorously and should grant such
motion only if the defendant comes forward with a credible
reason that outweighs the risk of prejudice to the Commonwealth.
8
The experts did not all diagnose the same mental diseases,
with the exception of posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol
dependency, and brain injury.
16
Commonwealth v. DiCicco, 470 Mass. 720, 728 (2015), citing
Commonwealth v. Fanelli, 412 Mass. 497, 504 (1992). On the
Commonwealth's appeal of the grant of a defendant's motion for a
new trial, we consider whether the judge committed a significant
error of law or abuse of discretion in allowing the defendant's
motion. Commonwealth v. Lane, 462 Mass. 591, 597 (2012). That
discretion, however, "is not boundless and absolute." See
Commonwealth v. Genius, 402 Mass. 711, 714 (1988). Under the
abuse of discretion standard, the issue is whether the judge's
decision resulted from "a clear error of judgment in weighing
the factors relevant to the decision . . . such that the
decision falls outside the range of reasonable alternatives"
(quotation and citation omitted).9 L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470
Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).
On review, "[a] judge's findings of fact after an
evidentiary hearing on a motion for a new trial will be accepted
if supported by the record." Commonwealth v. Walker, 443 Mass.
213, 224 (2005). Where, as here, the motion judge is also the
9
In L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014),
we "retired" the prior standard for abuse of discretion that
deferred to the judge except on a showing that "no conscientious
judge, acting intelligently, could honestly have taken the view
expressed by [her]" (quotation and citation omitted). While
deference is still appropriate, the revised abuse of discretion
standard confirms that an appellate court is entitled to correct
a decision that is based on an erroneous view of the law or a
clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.
17
trial judge, we give "special deference" to the judge's findings
of fact and the ultimate decision on the motion. Lane, 462
Mass. at 597. We consider the record in its entirety, however,
to determine whether "there exists in the record before us
evidence to support the judge's decision to order a new trial."
Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Preston, 393 Mass. 318, 324 (1984).
b. Ineffective assistance of counsel. "Where a new trial
is sought based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the burden of proving ineffectiveness rests with the defendant."
Commonwealth v. Montez, 450 Mass. 736, 755 (2008), citing
Commonwealth v. Comita, 441 Mass. 86, 90 (2004). We begin the
analysis with an overview of the legal principles underlying the
judge's allowance of the defendant's motion for a new trial on
the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the
familiar Saferian test, a defendant is denied constitutionally
effective assistance of counsel if the representation fell
"measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary
fallible lawyer," and that the performance inadequacy "likely
deprived the defendant of an otherwise available, substantial
ground of defence." Saferian, 366 Mass. at 96. The Saferian
test is implicit recognition that the constitutional interest
undergirding the assistance of counsel jurisprudence is the
right to a fair trial. Although a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel may not prevail unless counsel's
18
performance affects the fairness of the trial, we need not reach
that analysis if we determine that counsel's representation did
not fall measurably below that which might be expected from an
ordinary fallible lawyer. See Commonwealth v. Haley, 413 Mass.
770, 775 (1992). See also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 689 (1984) ("[T]he purpose of the effective assistance
guarantee . . . is simply to ensure that criminal defendants
receive a fair trial," not to "improve the quality of legal
representation, although that is a goal of considerable
importance to the legal system"). "In cases where tactical or
strategic decisions of the defendant's counsel are at issue, we
conduct our review with some deference to avoid characterizing
as unreasonable a defense that was merely unsuccessful."
Commonwealth v. Valentin, 470 Mass. 186, 190 (2014), quoting
Commonwealth v. White, 409 Mass. 266, 272 (1991). This measure
of deference is as it must be because, ultimately, counsel alone
has the benefit of the full factual picture that dictates the
choice of those matters to be revealed to the fact finder and
those that are better left unexposed to court room scrutiny.
From that vantage point, counsel "knows best how to defend a
client." Commonwealth v. Glover, 459 Mass. 836, 843 (2011).
Where, as here, the defendant's ineffective assistance of
counsel claim is based on a tactical or strategic decision, the
test is whether the decision was "'manifestly unreasonable' when
19
made." Commonwealth v. Acevedo, 446 Mass. 435, 442 (2006),
quoting Commonwealth v. Adams, 374 Mass. 722, 728 (1978). The
inquiry involves both temporal and substantive considerations.
The temporal consideration limits the effect of hindsight by
requiring a focus on the point in time when counsel made the
challenged strategic decision. Glover, 459 Mass. at 843,
quoting Commonwealth v. Fenton F., 442 Mass. 31, 38 (2004).
Substantively, "[o]nly 'strategy and tactics which lawyers of
ordinary training and skill in the criminal law would not
consider competent'" are manifestly unreasonable. Commonwealth
v. Pillai, 445 Mass. 175, 186-187 (2005), quoting Commonwealth
v. Levia, 385 Mass. 345, 353 (1982).
c. Manifest unreasonableness of counsel's strategic
decisions. Deference to the motion judge's discretion
notwithstanding, see Commonwealth v. Lucien, 440 Mass. 658, 669-
670 (2004), we conclude for the reasons explained infra that the
record before us lacks support for the judge's ruling that
counsel's duty to provide constitutionally effective assistance
of counsel compelled further investigation of Dr. Fox's PTSD
diagnosis and the presentation of a defense based on that
diagnosis.
First, the judge erred by misapplying the "manifestly
unreasonable" test to the facts of this case. Reasonableness in
the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is an
20
objective standard that measures counsel's conduct against that
which "lawyers of ordinary training and skill in the criminal
law" would consider competent. See Pillai, 445 Mass. at 186-
187. See Saferian, 366 Mass. at 96. Although our cases
applying the manifestly unreasonable test have not precisely
marked the limits of a trial attorney's prerogative to make
strategic decisions, we have been clear that reasonableness does
not demand perfection. Valentin, 470 Mass. at 190. See
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. Nor is reasonableness informed by
what hindsight may reveal as a superior or better strategy.
Commonwealth v. Bernier, 359 Mass. 13, 17 (1971). Counsel may
strive for perfection, but only competence or the avoidance of a
"serious incompetency" is required. Walker, 443 Mass. at 225.
The manifestly unreasonable test, therefore, is essentially a
search for rationality in counsel's strategic decisions, taking
into account all the circumstances known or that should have
been known to counsel in the exercise of his duty to provide
effective representation to the client and not whether counsel
could have made alternative choices. Id. at 227-228. Counsel's
strategic choices did not yield an outcome favorable to the
defendant and, in hindsight, he could have done more or made
different choices. Nonetheless, those strategic choices were
rational and entirely consistent with what "lawyers of ordinary
training and skill in the criminal law" would deem to be
21
competent. Pillai, 445 Mass. at 186-187; Saferian, 366 Mass. at
96.
Counsel's decision to forgo further investigation of the
defendant's mental state was an informed exercise of his
prerogative to decide on the defense strategy. As the judge
found, counsel was aware of the options but made the strategic
decision that a lack of criminal responsibility or diminished
capacity defense was unlikely to succeed and that further
investigation was unnecessary. Indeed, Dr. Fox's letter of
January 5, 1999, proposing these options to counsel suggested
that it would have been necessary to pursue further
investigation only if counsel intended to choose either defense.
Because counsel had done what was necessary to identify the
defense options based on PTSD, we discern no basis to hold that
he was required to exhaustively explore and identify the
constellation of mental diseases later identified in the
posttrial examinations. See Commonwealth v. Candelario, 446
Mass. 847, 856-858 (2006). Cf. Walker, 443 Mass. at 223.
Contrast Commonwealth v. Roberio, 428 Mass. 278, 280 (1998),
S.C., 440 Mass. 245 (2003).
In reviewing the judge's assessment of defense counsel's
strategy, we cannot blind ourselves to what counsel and other
experienced trial attorneys know all too well: the extreme
difficulty in successfully defending a murder case based on a
22
lack of criminal responsibility defense.10 Walker, 443 Mass. at
226 & n.2 (affirming judge's finding of no ineffective
assistance of counsel and noting "insanity verdicts are rare,
even when . . . there is strong evidence of mental illness or
bizarre human conduct"). We reiterate here the judge's
references to counsel's concern that a lack of criminal
responsibility defense would expose the defendant's mental
condition to examination by the Commonwealth's experts. This
possibility was a powerful disincentive to pursue a defense
based on a newly diagnosed condition that likely would have been
undermined by the Commonwealth's expert. Given the substantial
agreement of all the trial witnesses, including the
Commonwealth's witnesses, on the defendant's extreme
intoxication at the time of the killing, counsel was entitled to
weigh this factor more heavily in his strategic choice of a
defense. From the perspective of the hypothetical lawyer of
ordinary skill and training, the choice between a defense that,
in counsel's reckoning at least, would require riding "two
horses," and a viable alternative defense based on the factually
unassailable intoxication defense developed by counsel, would
10
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Rosenthal, 432 Mass. 124, 124-
125 (2000) (defendant convicted of murder despite insanity
defense where victim's organs were removed and impaled on
stake).
23
pose little difficulty. Thus, we conclude that the judge's
implicit finding that the hypothetical attorney of ordinary
skills and training would perceive a "serious incompetency" in
counsel's strategy to forgo an insanity defense in this case was
error. See Saferian, 366 Mass. at 96.
Further, the adequacy of counsel's performance is supported
by Dr. Fox's agreement to testify at trial in accordance with
counsel's strategy to defend against the indictment based only
on the intoxication defense.11 Dr. Fox's participation in the
trial on these terms would not have communicated to counsel the
fundamental disagreement that Dr. Fox asserted at the posttrial
proceedings. Rather, counsel likely would have assumed that his
approach was acceptable from a medical point of view. See
Commonwealth v. Gaboriault, 439 Mass. 84, 95 (2003) (rejecting
defendant's claim that trial counsel was manifestly unreasonable
by failing to obtain expert's opinion on criminal responsibility
prior to trial where counsel obtained opinion from another
expert and this expert did not volunteer such opinion until
after trial). Where this is the case, we see no basis to fault
counsel for elevating his concern for a viable legal defense
11
Dr. Fox testified as a witness for the defense as
requested by counsel notwithstanding his advice that "PTSD might
be a defense worth pursuing" and that "further evaluation and
testing would be useful if the defense were to be presented in
court."
24
over a possible alternative approach likely fraught with
difficulty.
The judge's assessment of counsel's performance also is a
factor in our analysis. Here, the judge found that defense
counsel "is one of the most experienced and successful criminal
trial attorneys in Western Massachusetts" and that, except for
the strategic decision challenged by the defendant in his motion
for a new trial, "counsel's performance at trial was in all
other respects exemplary." Significantly, the judge also found
that counsel "took appropriate steps to investigate various
defenses" and "did not ignore [the defense expert's] opinion
that the defendant suffered . . . from PTSD." Where counsel's
performance is "in all other respects exemplary,"12 we are
persuaded that the measure of deference generally accorded to
counsel's strategic choices was not applied in this case.
As a closing observation on this issue, we emphasize that
caution is warranted in any suggestion that an attorney
representing a defendant in a murder case must submit to the
advice of a chosen expert. Medical experts are not attorneys.
A defendant's legal counsel is uniquely qualified to assess the
12
The judge noted that "counsel vigorously argued all the
evidence . . . [and that the] impairment defense appeared to
have succeeded, in part, as the jury found the defendant not
guilty of murder by deliberate premeditation."
25
nuances that attend the development of the trial strategy. See
Glover, 459 Mass. at 843. Although counsel's strategic choices
are always open to review, we are hesitant to endorse an
analytical approach to ineffective assistance of counsel claims
that permits a retained expert to support or otherwise cooperate
with the defense strategy at trial and later repudiate that
participation by criticizing or attacking the very role he
played in the trial.
We appreciate that our appellate cases offered no clear
guidance to the judge in her analysis of counsel's strategic
choices; however, the cases relied upon by the judge do not
require a finding that counsel's strategic decisions were
manifestly unreasonable. In Walker, 443 Mass. at 223, the issue
centered on counsel's decision not to investigate a defense of
lack of criminal responsibility. Despite defense counsel's
knowledge in that case that the defendant had years prior
attempted suicide and had been discharged from the armed
services for psychological reasons, id. at 225-226, the court
held that because of "scant" evidence that the defendant had a
history of mental health problems, counsel's decision not to
investigate lack of criminal responsibility was not a manifestly
unreasonable strategic choice. Id. at 227-228. The judge
extrapolated from Walker a constitutional duty to explore fully
the nature and extent of defendant's PTSD, apparently based on
26
the defendant's presentation of "strong expert opinion evidence
that he suffered from mental illness at the time of the
homicide." According to this logic, if counsel was excused from
the obligation to investigate a lack of criminal responsibility
defense where the evidence of mental disease was minimal or
nonexistent, then counsel is obliged to investigate where there
is strong evidence of such a condition.
The judge's reference to the "strong" posttrial evidence of
the defendant's mental illness at the time of the homicide
suggests an undue reliance on hindsight. As we often have
cautioned, a court may not apply the benefit of hindsight in
assessing counsel's strategic choices. See Strickland, 466 U.S.
at 680; Glover, 459 Mass. at 843. The issue for the judge
considering ineffective assistance of counsel on this ground is
whether the strategic choice was reasonable at the time made.
See Strickland, supra; Glover, supra. We reiterate that despite
the substantive appeal of the new information, the issue should
not be resolved by giving undue weight to facts unearthed during
counsel's posttrial research. Rather, the issue is whether
counsel was under a duty to make that same inquiry based on what
he knew or should have known at the time of his trial
preparation. Here, trial counsel already was aware of the
implications of the defendant's PTSD diagnosis and made a
27
rational choice to rely on a different defense; he was under no
duty to seek further expert opinion on the point.
Candelario, 446 Mass., also relied on by the judge, does
not support the finding that counsel's strategic choices were
manifestly unreasonable. In Candelario, supra at 853, trial
counsel retained a mental health expert to evaluate the
defendant before trial. Although the expert diagnosed the
defendant with a frontal lobe deficit, trial counsel decided not
to present an insanity defense and focused instead on winning a
verdict of murder in the second degree or manslaughter. Id. at
853-854. This court affirmed the denial of a motion for a new
trial where the evidence suggested that the defendant was a
malingerer and his mental health issues were contrived, and
concluded that trial counsel's decision was reasonable in light
of the obvious "weaknesses in a defense of lack of criminal
responsibility." Id. at 854, 856-857. Thus, Candelario is in
accord with the view stated above that defense counsel may
reject an expert's opinion of a defendant's mental condition if
it is in the best interest of the trial strategy. Glover, 459
Mass. at 843.
c. Prejudice. Based on our conclusion that the judge
erred in ruling that counsel's strategic choice to forgo further
investigation of the defendant's mental condition and to present
only an intoxication defense were manifestly unreasonable, we
28
need not address the issue of prejudice. Glover, 459 Mass. at
844-845.
Order granting motion for
a new trial reversed.