People v. McPeters

In People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, the defendant was charged with murder and a robbery special circumstance. Defense counsel conceded the defendant's presence at the scene of the murder contrary to defendant's alibi defense. The defendant claimed this was error. The court summarized the extremely strong evidence against the defendant placing him at the scene of the crime, including fingerprints on the murder weapon and five eyewitnesses identifying him as the murderer or being at the scene of the crime. "Defendant then testified on his own behalf, denying he was even present and suggesting someone had somehow planted his fingerprint. Defense counsel had only one realistic chance--to discredit the robbery evidence--and faced the likely prospect that defendant's own testimony had destroyed his credibility beyond rehabilitation. From a tactical point of view, it was, to say the least, an uphill battle." ( Id. at p. 1186.) The Supreme Court found counsel's concession that the defendant was at the scene of the crime not error. "In light of the evidence, counsel elected to concede his client's presence at the scene (a fact no one but defendant disputed) and to explain his client's contrary testimony as a failure of recollection. Defendant's testimony provided support for the strategy; he professed failure of recollection numerous times while on the stand. Counsel attacked the robbery and robbery special-circumstance charges, maintaining defendant did not have the requisite intent to steal and did not in fact steal. These arguments were proper and related to the elements of the crimes as disclosed in the instructions given to the jury." ( People v. McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 1186-1187.)