LA2: No IAC for not challenging search of house two months after murder

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress a search of defendant’s home two months after a murder because it wasn’t meritorious [and the court never says why it wasn’t].
State v. Critton, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 1618 (La. App. 2 Cir. Aug. 22, 2018):

Defendant argues that his attorney was ineffective in allowing the state to introduce evidence that was seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant two months after the crime was committed. Defendant claims that his attorney should have objected to the admission of the handwritten poem and the list found in his house and to the evidence seized from the burn pile in his backyard.

The record shows that all of the above evidence was seized from defendant’s residence pursuant to a valid search warrant. The evidence was relevant to show defendant’s plan and intent to commit the crime, as well as his actions after the crime. Further, on cross-examination of the officer who executed the search warrant, defense counsel pointed out to the jury that the evidence was seized two months after the crime occurred. In addition, defendant’s attorney had objected to admission of the poem and the list at the 404B hearing and at trial. After reviewing the record, we find that defendant has failed to allege any facts which would require suppression of the evidence seized from his house. Therefore, he failed to show that a motion to suppress should have been granted or that his attorney was deficient in failing to file such a motion. This assignment of error is without merit.

Staleness is never mentioned. So, is this case authority or not? I’d say its all dicta and, at best, only mildly persuasive in its own circuit.

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.