e.g., Hoyt, 806 P.2d at 211. 110 Thus, Marble argues that because it is clearly impermissible under rule 608 and the Ri ("[The purpose of [the plain error] rule is in no way implicated if defense counsel consciously elects to permit evidence to be admitted as part of a defense strategy rather than through inadvertence or neglect."). Therefore, despite the fact that counsel's alleged errors may have satisfied the test for plain error, which we do not decide, we review the merits of Marble's ineffective assistance of counsel claim exclusively under the Strickland test. ¶ 11 Under Strickland, the defendant must first demonstrate that counsel's performance was objectively deficient. To do this, the defendant "must overcome the strong presumption that his trial counsel rendered adequat 931 (<HOLDING>). Similarly, a defendant cannot demonstrate
recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury holding that district courts incomplete 404b limiting instruction did not warrant reversal because district court told defense counsel what limiting instruction it would give and defense counsel did not object or request a more specific instruction holding that the failure to object to a trial courts instruction constitutes waiver holding that counsels failure to object or request a limiting instruction for evidence of defendants incarceration was sound trial strategy holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy