FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, BRA NCH and BETHEL, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ar ch 16, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 7 A1 85 7 . GONZALES v

. THE STATE.

M C F A D D E N , Pres id i n g J u d g e.

On ap p eal f

ro m h i s co n v i ct i o n fo r ag g rav at ed sex u al b at tery an d ch i ld

m o les t at i o n

, M i g u el Go n zal es arg u es t h at h i s t ri al co u n s el was i neffect i v e fo r fai l i n g

t o as k t he v i ct i m ’ s m o t h er h er op i n i o n ab ou t t h e v i ct i m ’ s tru t h fu l n es s. W e ag ree an d

we fi nd t h at t h e d efi ci en t p erfo r m a n c e w a s p reju di ci al

. So we rev ers e Go n zal es ’ s

co n vi ct i o n s

. Becau s e t h e ev id en ce i s l eg al l y s u f f i c ien t t o s u p p o rt t he co nv i ct i o n s

,

Go n zal es m ay b e ret ri ed

. Acco rd i n g l y

, w e ad d res s t h ree i ss u es t hat co u l d occu r u p o n

ret ri al

. W e reject Go n zal es ’ s arg u m en t s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y refu s i n g t o al l o w

co u ns el t o as k t h e v i ct im wh et h er s h e al way s t o l d t h e t ru t h ; b y refu s i n g t o al l o w

co u ns el t o as k p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs wh et h er t h ey b el i ev ed Go nzal es was g u i l t y ; an d in

i n s t ru ct i n g t h e ju ry

.1

. Fa ct s

.

“ On ap p eal fro m a cri m i n al co n v i ct i o n

, we v i ew t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l ig h t m o s t

fav o rab l e to t h e v erd i ct

, w i t h t h e d efen d an t n o l o n g er en j o y i n g a p res u m

p t i o n o f

i n n o cen ce.” Rees e v. S t a t e , 2 7 0 Ga. Ap p . 5 2 2, 5 2 3 (6 0 7 SE2 d 1 65 ) (2 0 0 4) (ci t at i o n

o m it t ed ). W e n ei t h er wei g h t h e ev id en ce n o r j u d ge t h e cred i b i l i t y o f wi t n es s es

, b ut

d et erm i n e o n l y wh et her, aft er v i ewi n g t h e ev i den ce in t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e

p ro s ecu ti o n

, “ an y rat io n al t ri er o f fact co u ld h av e fo u n d t h e es s en t i al el em en t s o f t h e

cri m e bey o n d a reas o n ab l e d ou b t .” Ja cks o n v. Vi r g i n i a

, 4 4 3 U. S. 3 07

, 3 1 9 (III) (B)

(9 9 SCt 2 7 81 , 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

So v iewed

, t h e reco rd sh o ws t h at b et ween 2 0 04 an d 2 00 7

, w h en t h e v i ct i m was

b et ween fo u r an d sev en y ears o l d

, s h e l i v ed wi t h h er fam i l y an d Go n zal es

. In t h e

s p ri n g o f 2 00 7

, Go n zal es wo u l d o ft en p i ck u p t h e vi ct i m fro m el em en t ary s ch o o l an d

d ri v e her t o t he fam i l y ’ s ap art m en t

. On o n e o ccas i o n

, Go n zal es pi ck ed u p t h e v i ct i m

,

t o o k h er h o m e, an d acco m p an i ed h er i n t o t h e b ed ro o m

, wh ere th e v i ct i m

, h er m o t h er,

h er s i s t er, an d G o nzal es ro u t i n el y s l ep t i n t h e s am e bed

. On ce i n t h e bed ro o m

,

Go n zal es t o uch ed th e v i ct im ’ s v ag i n a t h ro u g h an d t h en u n d ern eat h her cl o t h i n g.

Un aware t h at Go n zal es h ad pi ck ed u p t h e v i ct i m fro m s ch o o l o n t hi s d ay

, th e v i ct i m ’ s

m o th er cal led p o l i ce. W h en t h e m o t h er an d t h e po l i ce arri ved at th e ap art m en t

, t h ey

2s aw Go n zal es ’ s t ax i o u t s i d e. Acco rd i n g t o t h e v ict i m

, G o n zal es s t o pp ed fo n d l i n g h er

o n l y wh en h er m o t h er an d p o l ice k n ock ed o n t h e d o o r o f t h e ap art m en t

.

Go n zal es s oo n m ov ed o u t o f t h e f a m i l y ’ s ap art m en t

, bu t rem ai n ed o n g o o d

t erm s wi t h t h em

, an d wo u l d o ft en p i ck t h e g i rl s u p , t ak e t h em t o h i s ap art m en t , an d

h el p t hem wi t h t h ei r h o m ewo rk

. On o n e s u ch o ccas i o n

, Go n zal es was o n h i s b ed wi th

t h e two gi rl s wh en h e b eg an t ak i n g o ff t h e v i ct i m ’ s p an t s an d u n d erwear, ev en t u al l y

p en et rat in g h er v ag i n a wi t h h i s fi n g er. A lt ho u g h Go n zal es t ol d t h e v i ct i m to “ ju s t [

] l et h i m d o wh at h e was d o i ng ,” t h e v i ct i m s cream ed

, awak en i n g h er s i s t er, w h o s aw

t h at Go n zal es was t ak i n g o ff t he v i ct i m ’ s p an t s. Go n zal es s t op p ed t ou ch i ng t h e v i ct i m

an d ran o u t o f t h e ro o m

. On an o t h er occas io n i n Go n zal es ’ s b ed ro om

, he t o o k t h e

v i ct i m ’ s h an d an d p l aced i t o n h i s p en i s

.

In March 2 01 3

, Go n zal es p i ck ed th e v ict i m u p fro m s ch o o l an d was t ak i n g h er

t o a d en t al ap p o i n t m en t w h en he s t o p p ed at a red l i g h t o r st o p si g n an d p u t h i s h an d

o n t h e v i ct i m ’ s vag i n a. Al t h ou g h t h e v i ct i m rem o v ed h is han d

, Go nzal es “ k ep t

p u t t i ng h i s h an d back ,” at wh i ch t h e v i ct i m b eg an to cry

. On M arch 2 8

, 20 1 3

, t h e

v i ct i m to l d a s ch o ol g u i d an ce co u ns el o r t h at a fam il y fri en d n am ed Mi g u el h ad “ t ri ed

t o m o l es t her in h is t ax i ” on t h e way t o a d o ct o r’ s ap p o i n t m en t an d t h at h e h ad

m o les t ed h er “ in t h e p as t .” W h en t h e s ch o ol p r i n ci p al no t i fi ed t h e v i ct i m ’ s m o t h er,

3t h e v ict i m t o l d h er “ ev ery t h i n g t h at h ad hap p en ed ,” in cl u d i n g t h at Go n zal es h ad b een

“ m o l es t i ng h er s i n ce s h e was s ev en y ears o l d ,” t o u ch i n g h er “ wi t h [h er] cl o t h es [o n ]

an d wi t h o u t

. ”

Go n zal es was arres t ed an d ch arg ed w i t h ch il d m o l es tat i o n ari s i n g fro m t h e fi rs t

t o u ch i n g i n ci d en t

, w h ich was al l eg ed t o h av e o ccu rred b et ween Ap ri l 3

, 2 0 0 7

, an d

Ap ri l 2

, 2 0 0 8 (C o u n t 1 ) ; ag g rav at ed s ex u al b at t ery ari s i ng fro m t h e i n ci d en t

wi t n es s ed b y t he v ict i m ’ s s i st er an d ch i ld m o l es t at io n ari s i n g fro m t he i n ci d en t o f

Go n zal es p l aci n g t h e v i ct i m ’ s h an d o n h is p en i s

, b o th o f wh i ch were al l eg ed t o h av e

o ccu rred b et ween Ap ri l 3

, 20 0 7

, an d M arch 2 1

, 2 0 1 3 (Co un t s 2 a n d 3 ); an d ch i ld

m o les t at i o n ari s in g fro m t h e in ci d en t i n Go n zal es ’ s t ax i

, wh i ch was al l eg ed t o h av e

o ccu rred “ o n o r ab o u t” M arch 22

, 2 0 1 3 (Co un t 4 ). Aft er a j u ry fo u nd Go n zal es g ui l t y

o f Co u n t s 1

, 2

, an d 4

, 1 h e was co n v i ct ed an d s en t en ced t o 2 5 y ea r s t o s erv e. H i s

m o ti o n s fo r n ew t ri al were d en i ed

.

Al t h ou g h Go n zal es d oes n o t ch al l en g e t h e su ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i den ce ag ai n s t

h i m , we h av e rev i ewed t h e reco rd , an d co ncl u d e t hat t h e ev i d en ce was s uffi ci en t t o

s u s t ai n h i s co n v ict i o n

. See OCGA § § 1 6 -6 -4 (a) (d efi n i n g ch i l d m ol es t at i o n ), 1 6 -6

-

2 2 .2 (b ) (d efi ni n g ag g rav at ed s ex u al b at t ery ); B u r ke v. S t a t e

, 2 0 8 G a. Ap p. 4 4 6

, 4 4 6

1 Go n zal es was fo u n d n o t g u il t y o f Co un t 3

.

4(1 ) (4 3 0 SE2 d 81 6 ) (1 9 93 ) (ev i d en ce i n cl u d in g t hat th e d efen d an t p en et rat ed t h e

v i ct i m ’ s v ag i n a wi t h h i s fi n ger s u p p o r t e d hi s co n v i ct i o n fo r ag g rav at ed ch i ld

m o les t at i o n an d ag g rav at ed s ex u al b at t ery ); Ja cks o n

, s u p ra, 4 4 3 U. S. at 3 19 (III) (B).

2

. Vi ct i m’s t r u t h

f u l n es s ; i n ef

f ect i ve a s s i s t a n ce o

f co u ns el

.

Go n zal es as s ert s t h at (a) t h e t ri al co u rt erred wh en it refu s ed h i s req u es t t o as k

t h e v i ct i m wh et her s h e al way s to l d t h e t ru t h

, t h u s al l eg ed l y rev eal i n g a ch aract er t rai t

fo r u n t ru t h fu l n es s an d t h at (b ) t ri al co u n s el was i n effe c t i v e i n fai l i n g t o el i ci t

t es t i m o ny o n t h is s u b

ject fro m ei t h er (i ) t h e v i ct i m or (i i) h er m o th er. W e fi n d t h at t h e

t ri al co u rt d i d n o t err b y ref u s i n g t o al l o w co u n s el t o as k th e vi ct i m wh et h er s h e

al way s t o l d t h e t ru t h an d t hat co u n s el was n o t i n effect i v e i n t h i s reg ard

. Bu t we fi n d

t h a t c o u n s el ’ s deci s i o n no t to el i ci t t es t i m o ny fro m t h e m o t h er am o u n t ed t o

i n effect i v e as s is t an ce o f co u n s el

.

(a) OCGA § 2 4 -6 -6 0 8 (b ) p ro v i d es i n rel ev an t p art :

S p ec i f i c i n s t a n ces o f th e co n d u ct o f a wi tn es s [ ] f o r t h e p u r

p o s e o f

a t t a cki n g o r s u

p p or t i n g th e wi t n es s ’s ch a r a ct er f o r t r u th f u l n es s

. . . m ay

n o t b e p r o ved b

y ext r i n s i c evi den ce

. Su ch i n st an ces m ay h o wev er, i n th e

d i s cr et i o n o

f t h e co u r t

, i f p r o b a t i ve o

f tr u t h f u l n es s o r u n tr u t h

f u l n es s

, be

i n q u i r ed i n t o o n cr o s s -exa mi n a t io n o f t h e wi t n es s : (1 ) [c] o n cern i n g th e

wi t n es s ’ s ch aract er fo r t ru t h fu l nes s o r u n t ru t h fu l nes s ; o r (2 )

[c] o n cern i n g t he ch aract er fo r t ru t h fu l n es s o r u nt ru t h fu l n es s o f an o t h er

5wi t n es s as t o wh i ch ch aract er t h e wi t n es s b ei n g cro s s -ex am i n ed h as

t es t i fi ed

.

(Em p h as i s s u p p li ed .) “ [A] s a g en eral ru le, ad m i ss i o n o f ev i d en ce i s a m at ter res t i n g

wi t h i n t h e so u n d d i s cret io n of t h e t ri al co u rt

, an d ap p el l at e co u rt s wi l l n ot d i s t u rb t h e

ex erci s e o f t h at d i scret i o n ab sen t ev i d en ce o f i t s ab u s e.” An d er s o n v. S t at e

, 3 3 7 Ga.

Ap p

. 7 3 9

, 7 4 2 (1 ) (7 88 SE2 d 8 31 ) (2 0 1 6) ( c i t a t i o n an d p u n ct u at i on o m i t t ed ).

Al t h o u g h a d efen d an t i s en ti t l ed t o a “ t h o ro u g h an d s ift i n g” cro s s-ex am i n at i o n

, fo r

ex am p l e, a t ri al co u rt h as bro ad d i s cret i o n i n det erm in i n g t he s co p e an d rel ev an cy o f

t h at ex am i n at i o n

. Mo r r i s v. St a t e

, 3 4 1 Ga. A p p

. 5 6 8

, 5 7 0 -5 71 (1 ) (8 0 2 SE2 d 1 3 )

(2 0 1 7). An d t h i s Co u rt h as n o t ed t h at O CGA § 2 4-6 -6 0 8 au t h o ri zes o n l y “ t h e u s e o f

s p eci f i c i n s t an ces o f co n d u ct i n o rd er t o at t ack (o r s u p p o rt ) a wi t n es s ’ s ch aract er fo r

t ru t h fu l n es s [.] ” Ga s ki n v. S t a t e

, 3 3 4 Ga. Ap p

. 7 5 8, 7 6 2 (1 ) (a) (7 8 0 SE2 d 4 2 6 ) (2 0 1 5 )

(em p h as i s s u p p li ed ).

Th e v i ct im ’ s th erap y reco rd s

, w h i ch t h e t ri al co u rt rev i ewed b u t ex cl u d ed fro m

e v i d en ce, i n cl ud ed a t h erap i s t ’ s n o t es th at t h e v i ct i m h ad “ a h i s t o ry o f l y i n g t o h e r

m o th er” an d t h at t h e m o th er h ad t o l d th e t h erap i s t t h at s he co u l d n ot t ru s t t h e v i ct i m

b ecau s e t h e v i ct i m “ co n s t an t ly l i es t o h er an d d o es t h i n g s t o b e vi n di ct i v e. ” Wh e n

Go n zal es s o u g h t to as k t h e vi ct i m

, “ Do y ou al way s t el l t h e t ru t h ? ” t h e t ri al co u rt

6s u s t ai n ed t h e St at e’ s o bject i o n t o t h e q ues t i o n

. Lat er i n t h e t ri al

, Go nzal es as k ed t h e

co u rt t o reco n s i d er i t s ru li n g an d s o u g h t t o as k wh et h er t h e v i ct im “ t el l [s ] t he t ru t h to

fi gu res o f au t h o ri t y ? ” Th e t ri al co u rt di s al l o wed t h i s q u es t i o n as wel l o n t he g ro u n d

t h at i t was i m

p erm i s si b le ch aract er ev i d en ce.

Bo t h o f t h e q u es t i o ns Go n zal es s o ug h t t o as k of th e v i ct i m

— “ Do y o u al way s

t el l t h e t ru t h ? ” an d “ [Do y o u ] t el l t h e tru t h to fi g u res o f au t h o r i t y ? ”

— were s o

b ro ad l y p h ras ed as t o h av e no o t h er effect t h an to p ro v e a g en eral ch aract er t rai t fo r

u n t ru t h fu l n es s

. Becau s e t h es e q u es t i o ns d i d no t s eek t o in v es ti g at e an y s p eci fi c “ act

p ro b at i v e o f u n t ru t h fu l n es s ,” G a s ki n

, 3 3 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 7 6 3 (1 ) (a), t h ere w as n o ab u s e

o f d i s cret i o n i n barri n g t h es e q u es t i o n s

, wh ich were d es i g n ed t o at t ack th e v i ct i m ’ s

ch aract er.

(b ) (i ) Gi ven th at th e v i ct i m ’ s g en eral p ro p en s i t y fo r u nt ru t h fu l nes s was a

s u b ject n ot p ro p erl y

fo r cro ss -ex am i n at io n , Go n zal es ’ s t ri al co u n s el co u l d n o t h av e

b een i n effect i v e fo r fai l i ng t o co n v i n ce t h e t ri al co u rt t h at i t s ru l i n g o n th e s u b ject was

i n co rrect

. Ha l l

, 2 0 2 Ga. at 70 4 (4 ) (d ) (t ri al co u ns el was n o t i n effect iv e i n fai l i n g to

o b ject t o t h e co u rt ’ s li m i t at i o n o f q u es t i on i n g as t o a wi t n es s ’ s rep ut at i o n fo r

t ru t h fu l n es s wh en t h at l i m i t at i on was n o t an ab u s e o f t h e co u rt ’ s d i s cret i on ).

(i i)

7Go n zal es arg u es t hat tri al co u n s el was i n effect i v e fo r fai l i ng to as k t h e v i ct i m ’ s

m o th er h er o p in i o n ab o u t t h e v i ct i m ’ s u n t ru th fu l n es s

. W e ag ree.

A m i s ap p reh en s i o n o f t h e l aw was t h e b as i s fo r t ri al co u n sel ’ s deci s io n

. So t h at

d eci s i o n am ou n t ed t o d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce. A n d t h e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce was

p reju d i ci al b ecau s e Go nzal es ’ s co n v i ct i o n s d ep en d ed en t i rel y o n q u es t i o n s o f

cred i b i l i t y

.

Th e St at e s ti p u l at ed th at

, h ad t h e m o t h er b een as k ed

, s he w o u ld h av e t es t i fi ed

o n cro s s -ex am in at i o n co n si s t en t l y wi t h wh at s h e h ad s ai d t o a co u n sel o r: t h at i n h er

o p i n i o n

, t h e v i ct i m was un t ru t h fu l

. At t h e m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al h eari n g

, t ri al co u n s el

ex p lai n ed h er rat i on al e fo r n ot as k i n g th e m o t h er h er o pi n io n o f th e v i c t i m ’ s

u n t ru t h fu l n es s

. Co u n s el t es t i fi ed t h at h er s t rat eg y was to as k t h e v i ct im wh et h er s h e

al way s to l d t h e tru t h

, an d if th e vi ct i m an swered t h at s h e w as al way s t ru t h fu l

, co u n s el

wo u l d “ bri ng i n t he ev i d en ce o f t h e m o t her wh o h ad [t o l d a co u n s el o r] t h at s h e was

n o t tru t h fu l

. ” Th at s t rat eg y fai l ed wh en t h e t ri al co u rt su s t ai n ed an o b ject i o n t o t h e

q u es ti o n

. So co u n sel d i d no t as k t h e m ot h er fo r h er o p i n i o n o f h e r dau g h t er’ s

t ru t h fu l n es s o r lack o f t ru t h fu l n es s

. Co u n s el ex p l ai n ed t hat

, w i t h o u t t h e v i ct i m ’ s

t es t i m o ny o n t he i s s u e, s h e an t ici p at ed a m eri t o ri o u s ob ject i o n on t he bas i s o f “ fact s

n o t i n ev i d en ce.

. . . [Sh e] d i d n ’ t t h i nk th at t h at was t h e way y o u l ai d a f o u n d a t i o n ;

8t h a t yo u had t o as k t h e p ers o n, t h e p ers o n t el l s y o u

– t el l s t h e l i e. Yo u i m p eac h t h e

p ers o n wi t h t h e t h i rd p ers on

. . . . [I] t [d i d no t ] ev er o ccu r[] to [h er] t o s k i p

. . . o n e

p ers o n .”

Tri al co u n s el was m i s t ak en

. Th e m o t h er’ s o p i n i o n ab o u t t h e v i ct i m ’ s

u n t ru t h fu l n es s was ad m is s i b l e, reg ard l es s of wh et h e r t h e v i ct i m t es t i fi ed ab o u t h er

o wn t ru t h fu l nes s

, u nd er O CGA § 2 4 -6 -6 0 8 (a) (1 ). T hat s t at u t e p ro v i d es i n rel ev an t

p art

, “ Th e cred i b i l i ty o f a wi tn es s m ay b e at t ack ed o r s u p po rt ed b y ev i d en ce i n t h e

fo rm o f o p i n i o n or rep ut at i o n

, s u b ject t o t h e fo l l o wi n g li m i tat i o n s : Th e ev i d en ce m ay

refer on l y t o ch aract er fo r t ru t hfu l nes s o r u n t ru t h fu ln es s .” Id

. “ [O] p in i o n t es t i m o ny

i s a p ers on al as s es s m en t o f ch aract er. Th e o p i ni o n wi t n es s i s n o t rel at i n g co m m u n i t y

feel i n g s

, t h e t es t i m o n y i s s o l el y t h e im p each m en t wi t n es s’ o w n i m p res si on o f an

i n d i v i d u al ’ s ch aract er fo r t ru t hfu l n es s .” U n i t ed St a t es v. W

at s o n

, 6 6 9 F2 d 13 7 4

, 1 3 8 2

(1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 8 2 ).

Si n ce co u n s el ’ s d eci si o n n o t to q u es t i o n t h e m o t h er was b as ed o n a

m i s ap p reh en s i on o f t h e l aw, i t can n o t b e d eem ed effect i v e as s i s t an ce o n th e b as i s t h at

i t w as a s t rat eg i c ch o i ce. “ [B] ecau s e co u n sel ’ s fai l u re t o [as k t he m o t h er’ s o p i n i o n ]

was du e t o a m i s ap p reh en si o n o f t h e l aw rat h er t h an an y u n w i s e ch o ice s o f t ri al

t act ics an d s t rat eg y

, . . . tri al co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce fel l b el o w an o b ject i v e s t an d ard

9o f reas o n ab l en es s

. ” Owen s v. S t a t e

, 3 1 7 Ga. Ap p. 8 2 1

, 8 2 5 (1 ) (7 3 3 SE2 d 1 6) (2 0 1 2 )

(ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ).

So t h e q u es t i o n b eco m es wh et h er “ t here i s a reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at

, b u t fo r

co u ns el ’ s u n p ro fes s io n al erro rs

, th e res ul t o f t h e p ro ceed i ng wo u ld h av e b een

d i fferen t

. A r e a son ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y i s a p ro b ab i l i t y s uffi ci en t t o un d erm i n e co n fi d en ce

i n t h e o ut co m e.” St r i c k l a n d v. W a s h i ng t o n

, 46 6 U. S. 6 6 8

, 6 9 4 (III) (B) (1 0 4 SCt

2 0 5 2

, 8 0 L E2 d 6 74 ) (1 98 4 ). “ In cl o se cas es

, w h ere t he ev i den ce p res en t ed b y t h e s t at e

i s t hi n

, m i s t ak es m ad e b y t ri al co u n s el tak e o n great er s i g n i fi can ce.” Za n t v. Mo o n

,

2 6 4 Ga. 9 3

, 9 9 (2 ) (4 4 0 SE2 d 6 5 7 ) ( 1 9 9 4). In t h i s cas e, t h ere is a reas o n ab l e

p ro b ab i l i t y t h at t h e o u t co m e w o u l d h av e b een d i fferen t ab s en t t ri al co u n s el erro r

b ecau s e t h e v i ct i m ’ s cred i b il i ty was a cri t i cal p o i n t as t o al l o f t h e co u n t s, an d i n fact

,

as t o t wo o f t h e t h ree co nv i ct i o n s i t was t h e o n l y ev i d en ce.

Th e ev i d en ce was no t o v erwh el m i n g

. Th e v i ct i m ’ s s t at em en t s were n ot

co m p l et el y co n s i s t en t

. On cro s s -ex am i n at io n

, s h e t es ti fi ed t h at s he d id n o t “ wan t to

an s wer” q u es t io n s ab o u t t h e al l eg at i o n s o f th e ag gr av at ed s ex u al b at tery

. Th e s t at e

p res en t ed n o m ed i cal ev i den ce t o s u pp o rt t h e ch arg es

. G on zal es t e s t i fi ed at t ri al

,

d en y i n g t h e ch arg es an d d es cri b i n g wh at h e b el i ev ed was t he v i ct i m ’ s m o t i v e fo r

accu s i n g h i m

. Two o f t h e t h r e e co n vi ct i on s d ep en d ed ex cl u s i v el y o n t h e t es t i m o ny

10o f t h e vi ct i m an d wi tn es s es t o w h o m s h e m ad e s tat em en t s

. Th e t h i rd

, wh i l e fu rt h er

s u p p ort ed b y t h e t es t i m o n y o f t h e v i ct i m ’ s s i s t er t h at t he act was i n h er p res en ce, al s o

t u rn s en t irel y o n cred i b i l i t y

. In deed

, i n i ts cl o s i ng st at em en t

, t h e St at e arg u ed t h at t h e

v i ct i m was “ n o t i m

p each ed i n an y way ”; t h at h er “ t es t i m on y s t [o od ] u n co n t ro v ert ed ”;

an d t h at “ we k n o w t h e v i ct i m i n t hi s cas e i s t ru th fu l [b ecau s e] s h e h as n o m o t i v e t o

l i e.”

“ [Th e v ict i m ’ s ] cred i b i l i t y was cri ti cal t o t h e [St at e’ s ] cas e. Th e [m o t h er’ s

o p i n i o n t h at t h e v i ct i m was u n t ru t hfu l ] wo u l d cert ai n l y b e es sen t i al t o a ju ry ’ s

d eci s i o n wh et her to b el i ev e [t he v i ct i m ’ s ] t es t i m o ny

, w i t ho u t wh i ch t h e [St at e] wo u ld

h av e n o cas e.” Un i t ed S ta t e s v

. Wa t s o n

, 6 6 9 F2 d at 1 3 8 3 (ci tat i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ). “ Si n ce t h e ev id en ce ag ai ns t (Go nzal es ) w as no t o v e r w h e l m i n g

, res t i n g

l arg el y u p o n t he t es t i m o n y o f o n e wi t n es s

, a reas o n ab le p ro b a b il i t y ex i s t s t h at t h e

p r e s en ce o f (t h e m o t h er’ s t es t im o n y t h at i n her o p in i o n

, th e v ict i m was u n t ru t h fu l )

wo u l d h av e affect ed t h e res ul t .” S ta t e v. Cr a p p

, 3 1 7 G a. Ap p

. 7 44

, 7 4 8 (2 ) (7 3 2 SE2 d

8 0 6 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (ci t at io n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). In o t her wo rd s

, t h ere i s reas o n ab l e

p ro b ab i l i t y t h at th e o u t co m e wo u l d h av e b een di fferen t h ad co u n s el co rrect l y

u n d ers t o o d t h e l aw an d as k ed t h e m o t h er h er op i n i o n o f th e v i ct im ’ s u nt ru t h fu l n es s

.

See Jo h n s o n v. S t a t e

, 2 6 6 Ga. 3 8 0

, 3 8 3 (2 ) (4 67 SE2 d 5 4 2 ) (1 9 9 6 ) (d efen d an t s h o wed

11a reas o nab l e p ro b ab i l i t y o f a d i f f e r en t o u t co m e ari s i n g fro m i neffect i v e fai l u re to

el i ci t ev i d en ce o f v i ct i m ’ s pri or act o f v i o l en ce wh ere, “ [ a ]l t h o u g h t h e ju ry h eard

ev i d en ce t h at

, ju s t pri o r t o h i s d eat h

, t h e vi ct i m was d ru n k

, en rag ed an d t h reat en i n g

t o k i l l ap pel l an t wi th a k ni fe o r g u n

, al l b ut o n e o f t h o s e wi tn es s es al s o t es t i fi ed t h at

t h ey saw n o t h i n g in t h e v i ct i m ’ s h an d s ”); G a s ki n s u p ra, 33 4 Ga. Ap p. at 7 64 (1 ) (b )

(i n “ h e s ai d

, s h e s ai d ” ch i l d m o l es t at i o n cas e wi t h OCGA § 24 -6 -6 08 (b ) i s s ue,

h arm fu l erro r o ccu rred wh en s t at e q u es t i o ned vi ct i m ’ s m o t h er a bout d e f e nda n t ’ s p ri o r

arres t s

, aft er t h e m o t h er h ad t es t i fi ed th at k n o wi n g d efen d an t ’ s rep u t at i o n fo r

t ru t h fu l n es s

, s he wo u l d b el i ev e h i s t es t i m o n y u n d er o at h ); Jo h ns o n v. S ta t e

, 2 8 4 Ga.

Ap p

. 1 4 7

, 1 5 1 -1 5 2 (2 ) (6 43 SE2 d 5 5 6 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (i n ag g rav at ed ch i l d m o l es tat i o n cas e

b as ed s o l el y o n th e t e s t i m o n y o f t he two al l eg ed v i ct i m s

, d efen d an t sh o wed a

reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at t h e ou t co m e of t h e cas e wo u l d hav e b een d i fferen t b u t fo r

t r i a l co u ns el ’ s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce i n

, i n t er al i a, fai li n g t o im peach v i ct i m s ). S e e

al s o S t a te v. Ma

yf i el d

, 8 2 2 N W 2 d 1 2 2 (Io wa Ct

. Ap p. 2 0 1 2 ) (i n ch i l d en d an g erm en t

cas e i n v o l v i n g ap p l icat i o n o f ev i d en t i ary ru l e co n s is t en t wi th OCGA § 2 4 -6 -6 0 8 (a)

(1 ), i m p ro p er ex cl u s i o n o f w i t n es s es ’ o p i n i o n s t hat vi ct im was u n t ru t h fu l was

p reju d i ci al

, g i v en t h at cas e h i n g ed o n t h e v i ct i m ’ s t es t i m o ny ). Cf. Co wa r t v. S t a t e

,

2 9 4 Ga. 3 3 3

, 3 42 (5 ) (7 5 1 SE2 d 3 9 9 ) (2 01 3 ) (ad m i ss i o n o f im p ro p er ev i d en ce

12b o l s t eri n g w i t n es s ’ s tes t im o n y h arm fu l erro r wh en wi t n es s ’ s t es t i m o n y was t h e o n l y

ev i d en ce ag ai n s t d efen d an t ); Ma n n v. S t a t e

, 2 52 Ga. Ap p

. 7 0

, 5 5 5 SE2 d 5 2 7 (2 0 0 1 )

(i n ag g rav at ed s o do m

y cas e i n w h i c h th e on l y ev i d en ce ag ai n s t d efen d an t cam e

t h ro u g h t h e t es t i m o n y o f t h e v i ct i m an d wi t n es s es t o wh om h e m ad e s t at em en t s

, t ri al

co u ns el was i n effect i v e fo r fai l i n g t o o b ject t o t w o wi t n es s es ’ t es t i m o n y t h at t h ey

b el i ev ed t h e v i ct i m ).

Go n zal es h as “ c arri ed hi s bu rd en t o s h ow t hat h is t ri al co u n s el p ro v i d ed

i n effect i v e as s is t an ce as d efi n ed i n S t r i ckl a n d

. ” Ken n eb r ew v. S t at e

, 2 9 9 Ga. 8 6 4

, 8 7 4

(2 ) (c) (7 9 2 SE2 d 6 9 5) (2 01 6 ).

3

. Ju r y s el ect i o n.

Go n zal es arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co urt erred w h e n i t b a rred h i m fro m as k i n g

p ro s p ec t i v e ju ro rs wh et h er t h ey b el i ev ed t h at h e was g u i l t y o f “ s o m et h i n g ,” wh i ch

co u ns el ex p lai n ed as m ean i n g t h e cri m e o f ch i l d m o l es t at i o n

. W e d i s ag ree.

Th e co n d u ct o f v o i r d i re “ i s wi t h i n t h e d i scret i o n of t h e t ri al co urt ,” an d “ t h e

co u rt ’ s ru l i n g s are p res u m ed p ro p er i n t h e ab s en ce o f s o m e m an i fes t ab u s e o f

d i s cret i o n .” Ri d

g ewa y v. S t a t e

, 1 7 4 G a

. A p p. 6 6 3

, 66 5 (3 ) (3 3 0 SE2 d 9 1 6 ) (1 9 8 5 )

(ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ); Ga n a s v. S t a t e

, 2 4 5 Ga. A p p

. 64 5

, 6 47 (2 ) (5 3 7 SE2 d 7 5 8 ) (2 0 0 0 );

13s ee al so Un i fo rm Su p eri o r Co u rt Ru l e 1 0 .1 (“ t h e fo rm

, t i m e req u i red an d n u m b er” o f

q u es ti o n s as k ed o f p ro s pect i v e ju ro rs “ i s wi t h i n t h e d i s cret i o n o f t h e co u rt ”).

Th e reco rd s h o ws t h at d u ri n g v o i r di re, t he t ri al co u rt as k ed t h e v en ire wh et h er

an y o f t hem had “ fo rm ed o r ex p re s s e d a n y o p i n io n ” as t o Go nzal es ’ s g u i lt o r

i n n o cen ce, wh et h er an y

o f t h em h ad “ an y p reju d i ce o r b i as ” fo r o r ag ai n s t h i m , an d

wh et h er t h ei r m i n d s w e re “ p erfect l y i m p art i al [as ] b et ween t h e St at e an d t h e

accu s ed

. ” Sh o rt l y aft erward

, wh en Go n zal es as ked th e v en i re “ h o w m an y h ere, as y o u

s i t h ere ri g h t n ow, b el i ev e [h e] i s g ui l t y o f s o m et h i ng ,” th e t ri al co u rt cal l ed a b en ch

co n feren ce d u ri n g w h i ch co u n sel ex p l ai n ed t h at s h e wan t ed t o as k t h e j u ro rs wh et h er

t h ey b el i ev ed t h at G o n z a l e s was “ g u il t y o f ch i l d m o l es t at i o n

. ” Th e tri al co u rt

res p o n d ed t h at i t w as “ no t g oi n g t o al l o w y o u to as k t h at q u es t i o n ,” an d t h at al t h o u g h

Go n zal es co u l d i n q u ire ab o ut t h e p ro s p ect i v e j u ro rs ’ “ l ean i n g ” o r “ b i as es ,” h e co u ld

n o t as k ab o u t th e u l t i m at e i s s u e o f “ g u i l t o r i n n o cen ce.” W h en Go n zal es ag ai n as k ed

t h e co u rt wh et h er he co u l d as k wh et h er t h e p ro s p ect i v e j u ro rs h ad “ m ad e a deci s i o n ”

ab o ut Go n zal es “ as y o u s i t h ere t o d ay ,” t h e tri al co u rt b arred t h e q u es t i o n

, ex p l ai n i n g

ag ai n t hat co un s el co u ld a s k w h et her t h ey wo u l d “ p res u m e h i m i n n ocen t ” as

i n s t ru ct ed an d wh et h er t hey h ad an y “ b i as ag ai n s t [Go n zal es ] ” as o pp o s ed t o a “ b i as

14ag ai n s t ch i l d m o les tat i o n .” T h e co u rt ex p lai n ed t h at ju ro rs m i g h t fi n d su ch q u es t i o n s

,

wh i ch t en d ed t o co n fl at e t h es e s u b ject s , “ co n fu si ng .”

Th e rel ev an t t es t as t o a q u es ti o n fo r t h e ven i re i s wh et h er t h e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro r

h as fo rm ed an o p i n i o n o n t h e g u i l t o r i nn o cen ce o f t h e accu sed wh i ch i s “ s o fi x ed an d

d efi n i t e t hat th e ju ro r w i ll b e u n ab l e t o s et t h e o p i n i o n as i d e an d d eci de t he cas e b as ed

u p o n t h e ev i d en ce o r t he co u rt ’ s ch arg e u po n th e ev i d en ce.” McCl a i n v. S t a t e

, 2 6 7

Ga. 3 7 8

, 3 8 0 (1 ) (a) (4 77 SE2 d 8 1 4 ) (1 9 9 6 ) (ci t at io n an d p u n c t u a t i o n o m i t t ed ).

Acco rd in g ly

, t h i s Co u rt h as l o n g h el d t h at “ n o q u es t i o n s h o u l d b e fram ed s o as to

req u i re a res p o n s e fro m a p ro s p ect i v e ju ro r wh i ch m i g h t am o u n t t o a p reju d g m en t o f

t h e cas e.” Th r a s h er v

. S t a t e

, 19 7 Ga. Ap p. 5 9 3

, 5 9 5 (1 ) (3 9 8 SE2 d 8 5 0 ) (1 9 9 0 );

At l a n t a Jo i n t Ter mi n a l

s v. Kn i g h t

, 9 8 G a. Ap p

. 4 8 2

, 4 8 8 (4 ) (1 06 SE2 d 4 1 7 ) (1 9 5 8 );

s ee al s o Eva n s v. S ta t e

, 2 2 2 Ga. 3 9 2

, 40 0 -4 01 (1 3 ) (1 5 0 SE2 d 24 0 ) ( 1 9 6 6 ) (ci t i n g

Kn i gh t wi t h ap p ro v al

, b u t o v erru l ed o n ot h er g ro un d s

, Ha r r i s v. St a t e

, 2 5 5 Ga. 4 6 4,

4 6 4 (2 ) (3 3 9 SE2 d 7 12 ) (1 9 8 6 )).

Here, t h e t ri al co u rt h ad al read y as k ed th e v e n i r e wh et h er an y o f t h em h ad

fo rm ed o r ex p res s ed an y o p i n i o n as t o Go n zal es ’ s g u il t o r i n n o cen ce, wh et h er an y o f

t h e m h a d “ a ny p reju d i ce o r b i as ” fo r o r ag ai ns t h i m

, an d wh et her t h ei r m i n d s were

“ p erfect l y i m

p art i al [as ] b et we e n t h e S t at e an d t h e accu s ed .” In l i g h t o f t h e

15p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs ’ res p o n s es t o t h es e q ues t i o n s

, wh i ch s h o wed t hat t h e y w e r e

i m p art i al

, t h e tri al co u rt d i d n o t ab u s e i t s d is cret i o n w h en i t b arred G o n zal es fro m

as k i n g th e fu rt h er an d p ot en t ial l y co n fu s i n g q u es t i o n wh et h er, b efo re hav i n g h eard

an y ev i d en ce, t h e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs b el i ev ed h i m “ g u il t y o f s o m et h i n g

. ” Th r a s h er

,

1 9 7 G a. Ap p

. at 5 9 5 (1 ) (a q ues t i o n wh et h er o r n ot p ro sp ect i v e ju ro rs “ b el i ev ed ” a

d efen d an t t o b e “ i n n o c en t” was “ i m p ro p er”); Eva n s

, 22 2 Ga. at 40 0 -4 0 1 (1 3 ) (n o

ab u se o f d i s cret i o n i n refu s i n g t o p erm i t co u ns el t o as k pro s p ect i v e ju ro rs wh et h er

d efen d an t , “ at t h i s t i m e, ri g h t n o w,” was “ an i n n o cen t m an ”).

4

. Ju r y i n s t ru ct i o n s ; i n ef

f ect i ve a ss i s t a nce o

f co u n s el

.

Go n zal es al s o arg ues t h at (a) t h e tri al co u rt erred wh en i t ch arg ed t h e ju ry t h at

t h e St at e n eed o n l y p ro v e th at t h e o ffen s es o ccu rred “ wi t h i n s ev en y ears p ri o r t o t h e

fi li n g o f t h e i n d i ct m en t reg ard les s o f t h e d at e l i s t ed i n t h e i n d ict m en t ” b ecau s e t h e

ch arg e vi t i at ed h i s al i b i d efen s e, an d (b ) co u ns el was in effect i v e fo r fai l i n g t o o b ject

t o t hi s p o rt i o n o f t h e ch arg e. W e d i s ag ree.

Befo re t ri al , t h e St at e req u es t ed a ch arg e t h at

t h e i n d i ct m en t i n th i s cas e d o es n o t s t at e t h at th e dat e o f t h e o ffen s e i s

a m at eri al av erm en t o r el em en t ; t h erefo re i t i s s uffi ci en t t hat t h e S t a t e

s h o ws th at t h e offen s e occu rred wi t h i n t he s ev en y ears p ri o r t o th e fi l i n g

o f t h e i n d ict m en t reg ard l es s o f t h e d at e l i st ed i n t h e i n d i ct m en t

.

16Du ri n g t h e ch arg e co nferen ce, Go n zal es ’ s t ri al co u ns el o bject ed t o t h is c h a rg e as

“ m i s l ead in g b ecau s e t h e r e i s on e ch arg e wh ere t h ere i s a s p eci fi c d at e av erred ”

–

M arch 2 2

, 20 1 3

, as s t at ed i n Co u n t 4

, 2 as t o wh ich Go n zal es s ou g h t t o pro v e v i a cel l

p h o n e reco rd s t h at he was n o t i n t h e area o n th at d at e. T he t ri al co u rt res p o n d ed t h at

i t wo u l d g i v e t h e p at t ern ch arg e, an d co u ns el di d n o t o b ject

. Th e t ri al co u rt l at er

ch arg ed t h e ju ry t h at th e i n d ict m en t s fo r ch i l d m o l es tat i o n an d a g grav at ed s ex u al

b at t ery “ [d id ] n o t s t at e t h at t h e dat e o f t h e o ffen se is a m at eri al av erm en t o r el em en t ”

o f t he o ffen s es o f ch i l d m o l es t at i o n o r ag g rav at ed s ex u al b at t ery

, an d t h at as a res u l t

,

“ i t i s s u ffi ci en t t h at t h e St at e s h o w[] t h at t he o ffen s e o ccu rred wi t h i n s ev en y ears p ri o r

t o t he fi li n g o f t he i n di ct m en t reg ard l es s o f t h e d at e l i s t ed i n t he i nd i ct m en t.”

In t h e ab s en ce o f an y ex p l i ci t o b j e ct i o n t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s res ol u ti o n o f t h i s

i s su e at t h e ch arg e co n feren ce, we rev i ew t he g i v en in s t ru ct i o n o n l y fo r p l ai n erro r.

S t a t e v. Kel l

y , 2 9 0 Ga. 2 9, 3 3 (2 ) (a) (7 1 8 SE2 d 2 3 2 ) (2 0 1 1 ).

Fi rs t

, t h ere m

u st b e an erro r o r d efect

. . . t h at h as n o t b een in t en ti o n al l y

rel i n q u i s h ed o r ab an d on ed

, i .e., affi rm at i v el y wai v ed

, b y t he ap p el l an t

.

Seco n d

, t h e l eg al erro r m u s t b e cl ear o r o b vi o u s

, rat h er t h an s u b ject t o

2 Co u n t 4 s t at ed

, h o wev er, t h at t h e at t ack i n th e t ax i was al leg ed t o h av e

o ccu rred “ o n o r ab o u t” t h at d at e. Th e “ o n o r ab o u t ” l an g u ag e “ was s u ffi ci en t t o p ut

(Go nzal es ) o n n ot i ce t hat t h e ex act d at e m i g h t v a r y f r o m t h e d at e co n t ai ned i n t h e

(i nd i ct m en t ).” Ja co wa

y v. S t at e , 2 2 5 Ga. Ap p . 7 1 2 , 7 1 3 (4 8 4 SE2 d 7 5 7 ) (1 9 9 7 ).

17r eas on ab l e d i s p u te. Th i rd

, t h e erro r m u s t h av e affect ed th e ap p e l l a n t ’s

subs t an t i al ri g h t s

, wh i ch i n t he o rd i n ary cas e m ean s h e m u s t d em o n s t rat e

t h at it “ affect ed th e ou t co m e of t h e t ri al co u rt p ro ceed i n g s .” Fo u rt h an d

fi nal l y

, i f t h e ab o v e t h ree p ro n g s are s at is fi ed

, t h e ap p el l at e co u rt h as th e

d i s cret i o n t o rem ed y th e erro r

— d i s cret i o n wh i ch o u g h t t o b e ex erci s ed

o n l y i f t h e erro r seri o u s l y affect s t h e fai rn es s

, i n t eg ri t y o r pu b l i c

rep u tat i o n o f ju d i ci al p ro ceed i n g s.

Id . at 3 3 (2 ) (a) (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

As au t h o ri t y fo r t h e ch arg e at i s s u e, t h e St at e ci t ed o ur d eci s i o n i n No r ma n v.

S t a t e

, 2 7 8 Ga. A p p. 4 9 7 (6 2 9 SE2 d 4 8 9 ) (2 0 0 6 ), i n wh i ch we n o t ed t h at “ [w] h ere t h e

ex act dat e o f th e co m

m i s s i o n o f a cri m e i s n ot a m at eri al al l eg at io n i n t h e i n d i ct m en t

,

i t m ay b e p ro v ed as o f an y t i m e wi t h i n t h e s t at u t e o f l i m i tat i o n .” Id

. at 4 9 9 (4 ), ci t i n g

Fr a zi er v. S t a t e

, 2 5 2 G a

. Ap p

. 6 2 7

, 6 2 9 (2 ) (5 57 SE2 d 1 2 ) (2 0 01 ) (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ). W h en an i n d i ct m en t d o es n o t m ak e t h e s peci fi c d at e o f an offen se a m at eri al

al l eg at i o n

, a d efen d an t ’ s ab i l i t y t o pres en t a d efen se i s no t affect ed as l o n g as t h e

i n d i ct m en t al leg es a ran g e o f d at es an d “ t h e ev i d en ce s h o w ed t h at t h e a c t s o f

m o les t at i o n o ccu rred bet ween s u ch d at es

. ” F r a z i er

, 2 5 2 Ga. Ap p. at 6 30 (2 ). It

fo l l o w s t h at t h e ch arg e g i v en b y t h is t ri al co u rt was p ro p er, a n d n o e r ro r, p l ai n o r

o t h erwi s e, h as b een s h o w n. No r ma n

, 2 7 8 Ga. Ap p

. a t 4 9 9 (4 ) (affi rm i n g ch arg e o n

18al l o wi n g St at e t o pro ve a cri m e’ s d at e “ as o f an y ti m e wi t h i n t h e s t at u te o f li m i t at i o n ”

wh en t h e ex act d at e was n o t a m at eri al al l eg at i o n i n t h e i n d ict m en t ).

(b ) Becau s e n o erro r h as b een s h own as t o t h e ju ry ch arg e, co un s el co u l d n ot

h av e b een i n effect i v e i n fai l i n g t o o b ject t o i t. Ha

yes v. S t a t e

, 2 6 2 G a. 8 8 1, 8 8 4 -8 8 5

(3 ) (d ) (4 2 6 SE2 d 8 8 6) (1 99 3 ).

Ju d g men t r ever sed . Bet h el

, J., co n cu rs

. Br a n ch

, J., d i s s en t s.*

* THI S OPI NI ON I S PHYSI CAL PRECEDENT ONLY. C O U R T OF

APPEALS RULE 3 3 .2

.

19A1 7 A1 85 7 . GONZALES v . THE STATE.

B R A N C H , J u d g e, d i s s en t i n g

.

Al t h ou g h Go n zal es arg u es t h at h e was p reju d i ced by co u n s el ’ s fai lu re t o el i ci t

t es t i m o ny fro m t h e m o t h er t h at h er d au g h t er was u n t ru t h fu l , co u n s el t es t i fi ed at t h e

h eari n g o n Go n zal es ’ s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al t h at co u ns el ch o se n o t t o d o s o b ecau s e

i n t he ab s en ce o f t es t i m o n y fro m t h e ch i l d h ers el f as t o h er t ru t h fu ln es s

, t h e m o t h er’ s

o p i n i o n o n t h e s u bject wo u l d h a v e b e e n b a s ed o n fact s n o t i n ev i d en ce. T h e t ri al

co u rt co n cl u d ed t h at decl i n i ng t o e x t e n d cro s s -ex am i n at i o n o f t h e m o t her t o t h e

s u b ject o f t h e v ict i m ’ s u n t ru t h fu l n es s was a reas o n ab le l eg al st rat eg y

. Becau s e we

are n o t en t i t l ed t o s u bs t it u t e o u r j u d gm en t fo r t h at of co u n s el an d t h e tri al co u rt o n

t h i s i s s u e, I d i s s en t

.

In t h e lan d m ark cas e of S t r i ckl a n d v. W a s hi n g t o n

, 4 6 6 U.S. 6 6 8 (1 04 SCt 2 0 5 2,

8 0 LE2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 ), t h e Un i ted St at es Su p rem e Co u rt n o t ed t h at[a] fai r as ses s m en t o f at t orn ey p erfo rm an ce req u i res t h at ev ery effo rt be

m ad e t o el i m i nat e t h e d i s t o rt i n g effect s o f h i n ds i g h t

, t o reco n st ru ct th e

ci rcu m s t an ces o f co un s el ’ s ch al l en g ed co n du ct

, an d t o ev al u at e th e

co n d u ct fro m co u n s el ’ s p er s p ect i v e at t h e t i m e. Becau s e o f th e

d i ffi cu l t i es i n h eren t in m ak i n g t h e e v a l u at io n, a co u rt m u st i n d u l g e a

s t ro n g p res u m

p t i o n t h at co u n sel ’ s co n d u c t f a l l s wi t h i n t h e w i d e ran ge

o f reas o n a b l e p ro fes s i o n al as s i st an ce; t h at i s, th e d efen d an t m u s t

o v erco m e t h e p res u m

p ti o n t h at

, u n d er th e ci rcu m s t an ces

, t h e ch al l en g ed

act i o n m i gh t b e co n s i d ered s o u n d t ri al s t rat eg y

.

Id

. at 68 9 -6 9 0 (III) (A); s ee al s o Ar n o l d v. S t a t e

, 2 9 2 Ga. 26 8

, 2 7 0 (2 ) (a) (7 3 7 SE2 d

9 8 ) (2 01 3 ). Th i s Co u rt h as t h u s h el d t h at “ w h i ch wi tn es s es t o ca l l a n d al l o t h er

s t rat eg i es an d t ac t i c a l deci si o n s are t h e ex cl u s i v e p ro v i n ce o f th e l awy er aft er

co n su l t at i o n wi t h h is cl i en t

, an d wh et h er an at t o rn ey ’ s t ri al t act i cs are reas on ab l e i s

a q u es t i o n o f l aw, n o t fact .” H o w a r d v

. S t a t e

, 3 4 0 Ga. Ap p

. 1 3 3

, 1 4 0 (2 ) (a) (7 9 6

SE2 d 7 5 7 ) (2 0 1 7 ) (fo o t n o t e an d p un ct u at i o n om i t t ed ); s ee al s o Per d u e v. S t a t e

, 2 9 8

Ga. 8 4 1

, 8 4 5 (3 ) (7 8 5 SE2 d 2 91 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (t h e d eci s i o n as t o w h i ch d efen s e wi t n es s es

t o cal l is a m at ter o f t ri al s t rat eg y an d t act i cs ).

At t he h eari n g o n Go n zal es ’ s m o t io n fo r n ew t ri al

, hi s co u n s el t es t i fi ed t h at

Go n zal es was “ ad am an t ab o u t b ei n g i n v o lv ed ” i n hi s o w n d efen s e “ fro m beg i n n i n g

t o en d ,” i ncl u d i ng t h e d eci s i o n wh et h er t o o b tai n t es t i m o n y fro m t h e v i ct i m ’ s m o t h er

2as t o t h e v i ct im ’ s u nt ru t hfu ln es s ev en i n t h e ab s en ce o f t h e v i ct i m ’ s o wn t es t i m o ny

o n t h e s u b

ject

. Co u n s el al s o t es t i fi ed t h at Go n zal es ’ s s t rat eg i c g oal was t o el i ci t t h e

v i c t i m ’s o w n t es t i m o n y co n cern in g h er t ru t h fu l n es s “ ou t o f th e [v i ct i m ’ s o wn ]

m o ut h ,” an d o n l y t h en t o s h o w t h at h er o wn m o t her t o l d a treat i n g p s y ch o l o g i s t t h at

t h e c h i ld “ [t ol d] l i es t o g et wh at s h e wan t s .” Lat er at t h e s am e h eari n g

, ho wev er,

co u ns el t es t i fi ed t h at t h e d efen s e t eam had fo u nd th e m o t h er’ s op i n i o n t h at t h e v i ct i m

was “ vi n d i ct i v e,” “ n o t t ru t h fu l ,” an d “ a l i ar” t o b e t h e “ bes t ev i d en ce” wi t h wh i ch to

i m p each t h e v i ct i m ’ s cred ib i l i t y

, an d t h at t h e re had b een n o s t rat eg i c reas o n fo r

fai l i n g t o o b t ai n t h i s o p i ni o n o n cro s s -ex am i n at i o n

.

Ev en if co u n s el l at e r

, w i t h t h e b en efi t o f t h e h i n d s i g h t pro v i d ed by ap p el l at e

co u ns el

, fo u nd fau l t wi t h t h e d eci s i on n ot t o ex t en d cro s s -ex am i n at io n o f t h e v i ct i m ’ s

m o th er t o t h e s u b

ject o f t h e v i ct i m ’ s t ru th fu l n es s

, t h at d eci s i o n w as u n dert ak en aft er

co n su l t at i o n w i th Go n zal es

, an d t h e tri al co u rt

, res ol v i n g c o n t r ad ict o ry t es t i m o ny

fro m co un sel

, ex p l i ci t ly

fo u n d i t t o be p art o f a reas o n ab l e t ri al s trat eg y

. See Ja r vi s

v. S t a t e

, 2 6 9 Ga. Ap p

. 4 1 5

, 4 15 (3 ) (6 0 4 SE2 d 2 58 ) (2 0 04 ) (co u n s el ’ s fai l u re t o cal l

v i ct i m ’ s m o t h er t o t es t i fy as t o t h e m o th er’ s “ l o n g st an d in g g ru d g e” ag ai n s t a c h i l d

m o les t at i o n d efen d an t was no t d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce). Becau s e we are n o t ju s t i fi ed

u n d er t h es e fact s t o s u b s t i t u t e ou r ju dg m en t fo r t h at o f co u n sel an d t h e t ri al co u rt o n

3t h i s i s s ue, I d i s s en t t o t h e rev ers al o f Go n zal es ’ s co n vi ct i o n o n t h e g ro u n d t h at t ri al

co u ns el was i n effect iv e i n t h i s reg ard

.

4