
McCoy “that he believed that all of [his prior] legal trouble and the current legal trouble that he was



                                                  -4-
in was caused by alcohol and drugs.” Following his evaluation, McCoy made “no diagnosis of any
mental condition.”

         On rebuttal, Michael John Little, a TBI forensic scientist, testified that he analyzed a blood
sample drawn from the Defendant at nine-twenty on the morning of the murder. He found no traces
of cocaine but found Valium within the therapeutic range. John W. Harrison, a TBI toxicologist,
analyzed the blood for alcohol content and determined the level to be .07 gram percent. He stated
that this level indicated a level of approximately .15 gram percent about five hours earlier. He also
testified that the presumptive level of intoxication was .10 gram percent.

                          INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
        The Defendant contends that his trial counsel committed errors during his representation that
were so grave and prejudicial as to entitle him to a new trial. Specifically, he contends that his trial
lawyer should have declined his case because the lawyer had earlier represented the victim in a child
support matter not involving the Defendant. He also contends that his trial lawyer should have
objected to the introduction of the 911 tape as inadmissible hearsay2 and that his lawyer’s failure to
do so renders the jury’s verdict unreliable. Upon our review of the record and relevant legal
authority, we respectfully disagree with the Defendant and find that he is not entitled to a new trial
on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.

         Both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 9 of the
Tennessee Constitution guarantee a defendant the right to representation by counsel. See State v.
Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999); Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975). This
right to counsel includes the right to effective counsel. See id.; Strickland v. Wa