Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to character evidence?
4. Did cumulative error render Tennell’s trial unfair? FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the early afternoon on February 2, 2005, Tennell was driving south on Highway 93 just south of Lolo, Montana, when he struck Alice Day’s oncoming vehicle head-on. Prior to the collision, multiple witnesses observed Tennell driving erratically and dangerously for approximately ten miles, weaving in and out of traffic and passing vehicles by using the center northbound lane. Witnesses reported that Tennell was driving too fast for the road conditions, which included travel at speeds of seventy or eighty miles per hour in a fifty-five mile per hour construction zone. Witnesses also noted [*3] that immediately prior to the accident Tennell did not appear to be aware of his surroundings, and in fact appeared to be slumped against the driver’s door of his vehicle as he drove. Ultimately, after two oncoming motorists narrowly avoided colliding with Tennell, his vehicle struck Alice Day’s vehicle, killi
Related Questions
- Was counsel constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and present a temporary insanity defense based on voluntary intoxication?
- Did the trial court reversibly err by failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law?
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding ineffective assistance of counsel?
