Powell v. Fuchs

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for agreeing to supplemental jury instruction on charge of first-degree reckless injury charge, where defendant claimed that said instruction misstated law. Charge arose out of incident in which defendant drove his car over victim while victim was attempting to purchase drugs from defendant. During deliberations, jury asked question as to definition of utter disregard for human life, and court and counsel answered question by stating that definition of utter disregard for human life had already been provided to jury, and that charge required jury to focus on time when defendant had engaged in conduct relating to operating his motor vehicle. Wisconsin Appellate Court rejected defendant’s argument that his counsel was ineffective, after finding that supplemental instruction responded accurately to jury’s question, and defendant failed to provide “clear and convincing” evidence to disturb state appellate court’s conclusion that supplemental instruction responded accurately to jury’s question. Also, defendant did not show that supplemental instruction misstated law, and there was otherwise sound reasons for trial counsel to agree with giving supplemental instruction, where defendant also faced counts of attempted first-degree murder and robbery, and where supplemental instruction removed from jury’s consideration negative inferences from evidence suggesting that victim’s throat was slashed with knife.