Opinion ID: 1168287
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to rebut Dr. Smith's opinion.

Text: Bingham asserts that he was denied effective assistance when his attorney did not call another doctor to rebut Dr. Smith's opinion that the most likely cause of the reddened and irritated condition he found when he examined the victim was attempted penetration with a penis. We disagree. Bingham's attorney attempted to impeach Dr. Smith's testimony on this point by using his testimony from the preliminary hearing. During this cross-examination Dr. Smith admitted that the irritated area could have been caused by other things than a penis, were the history not there at that particular time. When Bingham moved for a new trial, he presented an affidavit from another doctor who concluded that it is impossible medically to state that the attempted penetration was with a penis. This doctor considered Dr. Smith's testimony both at the preliminary hearing and at trial in reaching this conclusion. If Bingham's attorney had called this doctor to testify, he would have been subjected to cross-examination as to the implication of the history that Dr. Smith had taken from the victim. This history indicated that Bingham had made the victim take her clothes off, had laid on top of her and had hurt her chest and legs. Whether the doctor whose affidavit was submitted after trial would have continued to hold the same opinion in the fact of this history is a tactical consideration defense counsel would have to take into account. Defense counsel chose to argue to the jury that Dr. Smith's opinion of probable attempted rape did not constitute evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether this was the best way to deal with Dr. Smith's opinion or not, we will not second guess the decision made by Bingham's attorney. Therefore, we conclude that Bingham's attorney was not deficient in not calling another doctor to rebut Dr. Smith's opinion.