State v. Tat

An error does not qualify as plain error if the record contains competing inferences that the party may have had a strategic purpose for not objecting to sworn testimony.

Defendant appealed a conviction for two counts of identity theft and one count of second-degree forgery. Defendant assigned error on appeal to the trial court’s failure to strike testimony by an officer, in which the officer swore he did not believe the validity of the defendant’s story. Defendant argued that, while he lied to the officer, there was a plausible explanation for the forgery. The State contended that part of the statement to the officer may have been a lie, but that Defendant was truthful in when admitting to the forgery. An error does not qualify as plain error if the record contains competing inferences that the party may have had a strategic purpose for not objecting to sworn testimony. The Court found that there was no plain error, and rejected the Defendant’s view. The Court acknowledged the defendant’s purpose for not objecting to testimony was strategic in nature. Convictions on Count 1 and Count 2 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.