Schaefer argued this evidence was improperly admitted and only served to portray Abulaban as a bad person, while having no relevance to what his state of mind was during the shooting.
A prosecutor countered that jurors were allowed to gain a complete picture of Abulaban’s character through three full days of testimony he delivered on the stand.
The appellate panel rejected multiple contentions that his trial attorney was ineffective for not objecting to the negative character evidence presented by the prosecution. The panel also wrote that the inclusion of Abulaban’s searches for dead body photos “was relevant as to his state of mind and intent in the days leading up to the murders.”
Schaefer also argued jurors were not properly instructed on how intoxication may have played a role in Abulaban’s mindset on the day of the killings, as testimony indicated he had been in the grips of a cocaine addiction and was under the influence of a large amount of cocaine on the day of the shooting.
The appellate court wrote in its opinion that despite the drug evidence, “the evidence of premeditation and deliberation was strong” as Abulaban had “engaged in significant planning activity before the murders” by keeping a copy of the apartment key after he’d been kicked out and planting the iPad.