Opinion ID: 1201062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: failure to object to preju-dicial and inadmissible testimony

Text: The district court described and disposed of this argument as follows: The petitioner's third argument is that he was denied effective assistance when his attorney failed to object to prejudicial and inadmissible testimony offered by the State. The prejudicial statements were references that the police knew the defendant and where he lived, that the victim had a baby, and that the defendant had arrest warrants outstanding and was on probation for Grand Larceny. The attorney was not asked about such a failure to object at his deposition. There is no allegation or evidence that the attorney was ignorant of the law or inadequately prepared concerning this issue. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption that the attorney acted reasonably. Further, the alleged prejudicial statements are inconsequential. The fact that the victim had a child hardly serves to enhance her credibility. The State was entitled to ask if the defendant had a felony and could specify the nature of the felony. The other alleged errors are insignificant. R., p. 98 (emphasis added). We agree with these conclusions.