Opinion ID: 2598757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Failure to Contest Victim's Testimonial Competency

Text: [¶ 27] Barkell alleges that trial counsel should have objected to the testimony of BV because she may have been incompetent to testify. Once again, Barkell shows us no evidence beyond speculation that such an objection would have been well founded. The competency of child witnesses is determined by the application of a five-part test. The child must demonstrate: (1) an understanding of the obligation to speak the truth on the witness stand; (2) the mental capacity at the time of the occurrence concerning which he is to testify, to receive an accurate impression of it; (3) a memory sufficient to retain an independent recollection of the occurrence; (4) the capacity to express in words his memory of the occurrence; and (5) the capacity to understand simple questions about it. Ryan v. State, 988 P.2d 46, 57-58 (Wyo.1999) (quoting English v. State, 982 P.2d 139, 145 (Wyo.1999)). A careful review of the record does not show any grounds to indicate that BV was not competent to testify. Again, Barkell must show some evidence, not mere speculation, to justify a competency hearing. Failure to present a baseless defense does not constitute the ineffective assistance of counsel. Allen v. State, 2002 WY 48, ¶ 36, 43 P.3d 551, ¶ 36 (Wyo.2002). [¶ 28] Counsel obviously made the tactical decision to attempt to impeach BV rather than exclude her testimony. Tactical decisions do not become ineffective assistance of counsel when they do not succeed, or when hindsight shows the different decision may have been the better course. Dudley v. State, 951 P.2d 1176, 1181 (Wyo.1998).