Opinion ID: 2634905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to move for a mistrial based upon certain testimony by the victims' mother?

Text: [¶ 17] This issue is directed toward the same statement made by Boyfriend to Mother just discussed in the preceding section. Here, Appellant contends that, in addition to objecting to admission of the statement, trial counsel should have moved for a mistrial. However, [g]ranting a mistrial is an extreme and drastic remedy that should be resorted to only in the face of an error so prejudicial that justice could not be served by proceeding with trial. Teniente v. State, 2007 WY 165, ¶ 27, 169 P.3d 512, 524 (Wyo.2007) (quoting Allen v. State, 2002 WY 48, ¶ 75, 43 P.3d 551, 575 (Wyo.2002)). Having determined that Boyfriend's statement to Mother was neither hearsay, nor unfairly prejudicial, we logically must also conclude that a motion for mistrial would not have been granted. Counsel is not ineffective for failing to [make] a motion that would not have been granted. Harlow v. State, 2005 WY 12, ¶ 53, 105 P.3d 1049, 1071 (Wyo.2005) (citing Lancaster v. State, 2002 WY 45, ¶ 58, 43 P.3d 80, 102 (Wyo.2002)).