Facts of the Case
Jones was convicted at trial on three counts of assault against a peace officer. While police conducted a roadside DUI investigation, Jones drove by at a high speed and swerved within 1-2 feet of the officers. Three officers were allegedly standing “out in the roadway a little ways” when Jones drove by, leading to filing each of the three counts.
At trial, the officers testified that they heard Jones’ vehicle increase in speed and saw the headlights swing towards them, leading them to believe Jones’ conduct was intentional. Jones was convicted by a jury at trial and appealed his conviction.
Issue on Appeal
Jones raised multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, citing his trial attorney’s failure to object to statements regarding his intent to hit the police officers with his car. Jones also claims ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial attorney’s failure to present evidence that one of the three officers was not actually in the roadway when Jones drove past.
Analysis
When analyzing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court looks to whether counsel’s performance was deficient, as well as whether without the deficient performance there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would be different.
At trial one of the officers testified that while standing in the roadway they thought the person driving towards them “was trying to run [him] over” and he felt the conduct “was intentional.” Jones claimed on appeal that his trial counsel should have objected to this testimony for making an impermissible legal conclusion. While intent is a key element in the charge of assault against a peace officer, the officer did not necessarily make a legal conclusion when offering their opinion about Jones’ intent. The Court noted that the testifying officer did not tie their opinion to the requirements of the law or tell the jury what verdict to reach. Since the officer’s statement was not a legal conclusion, counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to object.
The three counts of assault against a peace officer were each based on the three officers allegedly in the roadway when Jones drove near them. However dashcam footage showed that one officer was standing some distance away from the remaining two officers. Jones claimed on appeal that counsel performed deficiently by failing to adequately investigate the facts of the case and present evidence at trial. The Court reasoned that had the dashcam footage been presented at trial there would have been a reasonably probability that a different verdict would be reached in regards to one of the three assault charges.
Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed Jones’ conviction on one count of assault against a peace officer, and affirmed the remaining convictions. The Court also held that Jones’ trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to testimony concerning Jones’ intent. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings, consistent with their holding on the reversed charge.