Opinion ID: 1111213
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Competence of Counsel Regarding Deanna's Testimony

Text: (25) Defendant asserts his counsel was ineffective for not challenging Deanna's ability to perceive, recall, or recount the events of her mother's death during the voir dire examination. However, the record shows no basis for such a challenge, much less any prospect it would have succeeded. Instead, Deanna's affirmative responses to the initial inquiries about these matters suggested further questioning by defense counsel may have been counterproductive. Moreover, as the Attorney General observes, defendant's trial counsel might have had a sound tactical reason not to question Deanna in depth: There could be no assurance that further probing would not trigger memories of the killings otherwise unavailable to her. Defendant also faults his trial counsel for not requesting the instruction provided for in section 1127f. [12] The trial court gave the jury the standard instruction on evaluating witness credibility, which in itself provides adequate general guidance for consideration of a child's testimony. There is no sua sponte duty to instruct the jury concerning a child's testimony. ( People v. Cudjo, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 623-624.) As the Attorney General remarks, defense counsel reasonably could decide to forgo the instruction for tactical reasons. The section 1127f instruction informs a jury that a child may perform differently as a witness from an adult due to the child's cognitive development level, that a child is not any more or less credible than an adult, and that a child's testimony should not automatically be discounted or distrusted. Defense attorneys have attacked the instruction repeatedly. They have claimed that it invades the jury's function of assessing witness credibility ( People v. Jones (1992) 10 Cal. App.4th 1566, 1572-1574 [14 Cal. Rptr.2d 9]), unduly inflates children's testimony, and decreases the government's burden of proof ( People v. Gilbert (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 1372, 1392-1394 [7 Cal. Rptr.2d 660]), and that it impairs the right to confrontation by undermining impeachment based on a witness's immature performance ( People v. Harlan (1990) 222 Cal. App.3d 439, 455-457 [271 Cal. Rptr. 653]). Although these attacks failed, they were not so baseless and unreasonable as to render defense counsel's performance deficient for not requesting the instruction in this case. In any event, because the jury received adequate guidance from the standard instruction on credibility, the absence of an instruction pursuant to section 1127f does not undermine our confidence in the trial's outcome.