Opinion ID: 2598757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to present testimony of BV's counselors

Text: [¶ 12] Testimony at trial indicated that BV had been in counseling before the incidents that led to the charges against Barkell. Barkell alleges that trial counsel failed to investigate possible evidence that the victim's counselors may have been able to reveal. He makes the assumption that, because BV was in counseling, there may be evidence in her counseling records to support his defense theory that she was either dishonest or motivated to fabricate the allegations of sexual assault. [¶ 13] We have often said that a defendant does not meet his burden to show his counsel's performance was deficient by mere speculation or equivocal inferences as to potential witnesses and testimony that could have been called at trial. Grainey, 997 P.2d at 1039-40; Cutbirth v. State, 751 P.2d 1257, 1266 (Wyo.1988). [The listing] of possible witnesses along with vague statements of the testimony they might provide ... falls far short of a presentation of the facts about which the proposed witnesses would have testified that is necessary to overcome the strong presumption that the failure to call these witnesses was a strategic trial decision. Eustice v. State, 11 P.3d 897, 904-05 (Wyo.2000). [¶ 14] Because Barkell does not identify any specific testimony or evidence that the counselors would have offered, the presumption that trial counsel rendered adequate assistance and exercised reasonable professional judgment is not rebutted, and it is therefore not necessary to address the second prong of the Strickland test.