Cited by

The decision of which witnesses to call is part of trial tactics and “lies within the proper discretion of trial counsel.”

(“Deciding the credibility of witnesses is generally the exclusive province of the [fact-finder].”).

discretion of trial counsel.” (quotation and citation omitted).

discretion of trial counsel.” (quotation and citation omitted).

(stating that matters of trial strategy lie within the discretion of trial counsel and will not be second-guessed by appellate courts); Case, d at 800 (stating that “counsel has no duty to include claims which would detract from other more meritorious issues.”).

But all of these are matters of trial strategy, and appellate courts “do not second- guess trial counsel’s decisions about trial strategy.” n.3 (Minn. 2013); (decisions such as what evidence to present, what witnesses to call, what objections to make, and what information to include in opening and closing statements are left to counsel’s discretion).

State v. Doppler (Doppler I)

We have repeatedly recognized that when the claim is that the evidence is not sufficient, *73 “our review is limited to ascertaining whether under the evidence contained in the record the jury could reasonably find the accused guilty of the offense charged.” State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , -32 (1965); (“When considering whether the evidence in a case is sufficient to support a guilty verdict, we examine the evidence presented in the record, along with legitimate inferences from that eviden

(discussing the reluctance of appellate courts to second-guess trial strategy, including what investigation to undertake).

(“[A] defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his counsel’s performance was deficient, i.e., that his counsel’s performance ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’ ” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct.

But “[w]hat evidence to present and which witnesses to call at trial are tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of trial counsel.” ().

Objective reasonableness requires that an attorney exercise “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would [exercise] under the circumstances.” (

“What evidence to present and which witnesses to call at trial are tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of trial counsel.” ().

(concluding that an attorney's decision not to focus on intoxication as a defense and failure to request an intoxication jury instruction was a matter of trial strategy); (stating that an attorney's decision not to request a cautionary instruction "regar

at 776 ; (holding that a decision to focus on self defense rather than intoxication as a defense was a matter of trial strategy and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel).

“[A]n attorney acts within the objective standard of reasonableness when he provides his client with the representation of an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

“[A]n attorney acts within the objective standard of reasonableness when he provides his client with the representation of an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct.

“In Minnesota, an attorney acts within the objective standard of reasonableness when he provides his client with the representation of an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).