Is there a tactical reason for defense counsel's failure to object at trial?

Finally, contrary to appellant's claims, there was a sound tactical reason for defense counsel's failure to object: an objection would have been unnecessary, disruptive and redundant in light of the court's admonitions to follow only its instructions as to the law, and its additional instructions that only its legal definitions, not counsel's, controlled. "[R]easonable counsel may well have determined that an objection would be unwise . . . because an objection (and possibly an admonition as well) likely would have served to highlight matter that might be unfavorable to defendant." (People v. Stewart (2004) 33 Cal.4th 425, 509.) Finally, as discussed above, any failure to object was not prejudicial given the overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt which established, beyond a

Page 17