Opinion ID: 1324474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Petitioner Has Demonstrated Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Text: The forensic interviewer's testimony substantially exceeded the limitations of time and place set forth in Rule 801(d)(1)(D), SCRE. The presumption of adequate representation based on a valid trial strategy disappears when trial counsel acknowledged there was no trial strategy in mind when he failed to object to the improper hearsay and bolstering testimony. Moreover, we can discern no defensible basis for trial counsel's failure to challenge the forensic interviewer's objectionable testimony. The evidence in the record suggests that trial counsel was deficient, thereby satisfying the first prong of Strickland. We next consider whether counsel's deficient performance resulted in prejudice to Smith. Having carefully reviewed the entire transcript of the underlying trial, we find Smith was prejudiced by trial counsel's deficient performance. The contrary determination by the PCR court has no evidentiary support in the record. We find this case strikingly similar to Dawkins. Here, as in Dawkins, the outcome of the case hinged on the Victim's credibility regarding identification of the perpetrator, and there was otherwise an absence of overwhelming evidence of Smith's guilt. The forensic interviewer's hearsay testimony impermissibly corroborated the Victim's identification of Smith as the assailant, and the forensic interviewer's subsequent opinion testimony improperly bolstered the Victim's credibility. The State relied heavily on the forensic interviewer's testimony to overcome inconsistencies in the Victim's testimony. In its closing argument to the jury, the State highlighted the forensic interviewer's testimony: Well, Ginger Gist talked to [the Victim]. She's the forensic interviewer if you recall. . . . And she determines in her opinion [the Victim] is believable. Says she's examined many, many children and you know sometimes you just can't believe them. But she said she believed [the Victim]. Believed what [the Victim] told her. There is no valid claim of overwhelming evidence of Smith's guilt. Even the State acknowledged in its brief that there was a great deal of conflicting testimony from virtually every State and defense witness who testified at trial. Moreover, in addressing Smith at sentencing, the trial judge commented on the conflicting testimony: I'm not giving you the maximum sentence in this matter. I'm not sure what all went on in this case. There is a lot of confusion as to the stories that were told by many of the witnesses. The State's concession and the trial court's observation support our conclusion that Smith was prejudiced by deficient representation at trial and that confidence in the outcome was thereby undermined.