Opinion ID: 2454387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sexual Assault Evidence

Text: Storey alleges several errors by trial counsel regarding sexual assault evidence. First, Storey assigns error because counsel neither objected to testimony that police prepared a rape kit, nor adequately cross-examined the witness who testified about it. Frey's body was found nude, except for a nightgown bunched up around her waist. In the State's case-in-chief, a police officer testified that a blood sample from Frey was placed into the evidence rape kit. Storey claims trial counsel should have objected because the prosecutor said in voir dire I don't, perhaps, see it [evidence of sexual assault] coming out at guilt phase. The prosecutor's statement at voir dire was equivocal, not a promise to omit sexual assault evidence at guilt phase. The brief reference to a rape kit was neither inflammatory nor prejudicial. Moreover, even if it were, trial counsel's decision not to objectand thus highlight the testimonywas a reasonable trial strategy and not ineffective assistance. Storey also argues that trial counsel was ineffective in cross-examining this same witness about details of the rape kit and the medical examination of Frey's body. At the 29.15 hearing, trial counsel testified this was a strategic decision because rape was already injected and she wanted to take the sting out of it. Trial counsel knew that sexual assault would be an issue at penalty phase, and made the strategic decision to inform the jury of it at guilt phase so it would not be so devastating in the penalty phase. The state of the victim's clothing injected rape as a possibility at both phases. Counsel's strategic choice to deal with it early was not unreasonable. Second, Storey attacks trial counsel's cross-examination of other witnesses who examined Frey's body. In fact, the challenged cross-examination elicited helpful testimony that Storey did not sexually assault Frey: (1) there was no semen or sperm, and (2) two pubic hairs found on Frey's body did not have all the characteristics of Walter Storey's pubic hair sample. Storey tries to construct an ineffective-assistance claim because this cross-examination failed to prove he did not assault Frey. In fact, the cross-examination drew admissions that the evidence could not establish Storey as a rapist. Given the state of the victim's clothing, this cross-examination helped Storey, and was not legally ineffective. Third, Storey claims that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to interview (before trial) the witness who testified that the pubic hairs on Frey did not have all of Storey's characteristics. Storey fails to demonstrate prejudice because he does not show what an interview would have revealed. Moreover, as noted above, the cross-examination (without the interview) was effective.