Error and/or relief
We find merit in the defendant’s claim of prejudicially ineffective assistance with respect to the court’s admission of the law enforcement witness testimony, and therefore reverse.
First Holding:
A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless there appears of record an objection to or a motion to exclude or to strike the evidence that was timely made and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of the objection or motion.
Authority:
EVID 353
People v. Flinner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 686, 726 [a defendant forfeits an argument on appeal where [s]he fails to object at all to the evidence in the trial court or when [s]he objects on substantively distinct grounds]
People v. Wilson (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1020, 1030 [defendant forfeited claim of prosecutor misconduct in closing argument, including based on an asserted violation of the Racial Justice Act, by failing to assign misconduct and request a jury admonishment]
Second Holding:
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failings, the result would have been more favorable to the defendant. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.
Authority:
People v. Rices (2017) 4 Cal.5th 49, 80
Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694
Third Holding:
In determining whether counsel’s performance was deficient, we exercise deferential scrutiny. The appellant must affirmatively show counsel’s deficiency involved a crucial issue and cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics. We presume counsel’s performance fell within the wide range of professional competence and that his or her actions and inactions can be explained as a matter of sound trial strategy. When the record on direct appeal sheds no light on why counsel failed to act in the manner challenged, defendant must show that there was no conceivable tactical purpose for counsel’s act or omission.
Authority:
People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 351
People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629, 679
People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181, 198
Fourth Holding:
An attorney may choose not to object for many reasons, and the failure to object rarely establishes ineffectiveness of counsel.
Authority:
People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 609-610
People v. Torres (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 37, 48 [counsel’s decision not to object is generally a matter of trial tactics]
Fifth Holding:
This is the rare case where there is no satisfactory explanation for counsel’s failure to object to the testimony of the two police officers concerning whether a drug exchange took place and the defendant’s involvement. Opinions on guilt or innocence are inadmissible because they are of no assistance to the trier of fact. To put it another way, the trier of fact is as competent as the witness to weigh the evidence and draw a conclusion on the issue of guilt.
[GARY NOTE: the balance of this issue was very fact-dependent, with the court implicitly finding that there could have been no legitimate tactical reason for the attorney to not object to the testimony.]Authority:
People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 77
People v. Torres (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 37, 47
People v. Brown (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 820, 827-829
People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 61 [trial court properly excluded proposed expert testimony that certain wounds were accidental and essentially that the defendant lacked the required intent, which was tantamount to expressing an opinion as to defendant’s guilt because it proposed to dispose of an essential element of the crime]