People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137 (1981)

An attorney is not required to argue factual innocence at the expense of a stronger defense, and failure to succeed after relying on a particular defense strategy, viewed with hindsight, does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

Summary

The defendant was convicted of manslaughter. She argued ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorneys focused on an insanity defense instead of disputing her commission of the crime, offered to stipulate to causing her husband’s death in exchange for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, presented no witnesses at the competency hearing, and because new counsel was substituted on the eve of trial. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that counsel’s strategic choice to pursue an insanity defense, given the overwhelming evidence against her, did not constitute ineffective assistance, even with the benefit of hindsight.

Facts

The defendant was charged with the stabbing death of her husband. Two attorneys were assigned to represent her. The original counsel presented no witnesses at a CPL 730 competency hearing. Counsel offered to stipulate that the defendant caused her husband’s death and waive a jury trial in exchange for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. New counsel was substituted to represent her shortly before the trial.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. She appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel based on the original counsel’s decision to present no witnesses at the CPL 730 competency hearing, the offer to stipulate to the defendant causing her husband’s death and to waive a jury trial in exchange for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, and the last-minute substitution of new counsel.

Holding

No, because the attorney who replaced the original defense counsel was an experienced lawyer familiar with the case, and because counsel’s strategic decision to focus on the insanity defense, given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s commission of the crime, does not constitute ineffective assistance.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the attorney who replaced the original defense counsel was an experienced lawyer who had access to the first attorney’s work product. His participation on the first day of trial was limited to cross-examination, and the court granted an adjournment for him to prepare the defense’s case. His later direct examination of the psychiatrist revealed his familiarity with the details of the case.

The court emphasized that both of the defendant’s attorneys recognized that the defendant’s only possible defense was insanity, and they chose to concentrate on it rather than attempt to rebut the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s commission of the crime. The court cited People v. Baldi, stating that “an attorney is not required to argue factual innocence at the expense of a stronger defense.” The court also stated that counsel’s failure to succeed after relying on the defense of insanity may not be viewed, with the benefit of hindsight, as evidence of ineffectiveness (see People v. Aiken, 45 NY2d 394).