Opinion ID: 1969489
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to introduce victim's medical records.

Text: Following the time of the alleged rape in 1986, J.M. was taken to a hospital in Pierre where she was examined by a physician and standard rape kit evidence was gathered. St. Cloud pled guilty in federal court to reduced charges, so the evidence was not used. In 1989, when St. Cloud was tried in state court, his defense counsel was told that all physical evidence had been destroyed. [8] St. Cloud points out that his defense failed to introduce J.M.'s medical records which showed no sign of force, did not call the physician who had examined J.M., and additionally made no issue before the jury of the fact that no physical evidence of any type existed. As explained by St. Cloud's defense counsel at the habeas trial, since St. Cloud's defense was based on consent, he did not think it was important to pursue whether any copies of J.M.'s medical records remained in existence, or to focus on the issue of lack of physical evidence. As to this allegation by St. Cloud, in regard to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the habeas court stated in finding of fact IX: That the victim's medical records were destroyed by the FBI after St. Cloud pled guilty of Federal Court and there were no other useful records and the State did not introduce physical or medical evidence that there was force. We have stated that lack of consent by a victim in a rape case is not established solely by showing physical resistance by the victim. The element of compulsion can be satisfied by showing that the victim submitted out of fear of violence or injury. State v. Gallipo, 460 N.W.2d 739, 743 (S.D.1990) (citing State v. Blalack, 434 N.W.2d 55, 60 (S.D.1988)). At St. Cloud's trial, the State did not present evidence of physical resistance, but did present evidence that J.M. submitted out of fear of violence or injury. That evidence consisted of the testimony of J.M. We are convinced that the decision of St. Cloud's trial counsel to not pursue physical evidence issues was a tactical decision. This was reasonable in light of the fact that St. Cloud's defense was consent of the victim, and the State offered no evidence of physical resistance. On review, it is not this court's function to second-guess tactical decisions of defense counsel at trial; this court will not substitute its own theoretical judgment for that of counsel. Miller, 338 N.W.2d at 678 (citing State v. McBride, 296 N.W.2d 551, 553 (S.D.1980)). This tactical decision does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.