People v. Brown

Defendant appealed his conviction for domestic battery, arguing that his counsel was ineffective for requesting a self-defense instruction. Defendant argued the evidence did not meet the minimal threshold required for the instruction to be given, because Defendant testified and denied committing the necessary act (a battery). Counsel was not ineffective. Even though Defendant denied committing the act when he took the stand, evidence that Defendant admitted to the act came in during the State’s case-in-chief. Since evidence of Defendant’s admission to the act was introduced, Court properly delivered the self-defense jury instruction. Defendant’s counsel could not have been constitutionally deficient for requesting a jury instruction to which Defendant was legally entitled. Defendant also argued that his counsel had a conflict of interest in posttrial proceedings, because the only issue she raised was her own ineffectiveness at trial. While it is possible that a defense attorney may zealously and competently argue his or own ineffectiveness, Defendant’s counsel failed to do so by failing to track down evidence and placing the blame on Defendant and miscommunication.