of the State’s rebuttal witness. As such, “preparation” for trial testimony would be impossible, since counsel was not aware of the substance of the State’s rebuttal testimony in order to engage in “preparation.” Moreover, the record shows that the “preparation” Cromartie had in mind would have altered his wife’s testimony that she never heard Cromartie discuss his case with his probation officer, which testimony was contrary to Cromartie’s statements during the defense case-in-chief. While the alteration of Mrs. Cromartie’s harmful, but presumably truthful, testimony may be viewed as “preparation” by appellant, we would consider it “fabrication” and do not find trial counsel ineffective for failing to engage in such. See Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U. S. 157 (106 SC 988, 89 LE2d 123) (1986) (<HOLDING>). (d) Trial counsel filed 12 motions on
holding violation of right to testify could not be harmless holding that the right to testify on ones own behalf does not include the right to lie holding that defendants exercise of right to testify in own behalf waives his fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination holding right to testify was federal constitutional right holding court denied party a fundamental right to due process by failing to allow him to present witnesses or testify on his own behalf