Opinion ID: 2598757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Consult with or Call an Expert

Text: [¶ 15] At trial, Barkell's counsel vigorously cross examined the State's expert witness, a child psychologist, but did not call a second expert to testify on behalf of defendant. Barkell assumes from this that his counsel did not consult with an expert or consider the possibility of calling a defense expert, and that such failure constitutes ineffective assistance. [¶ 16] In McCoy v. State, 886 P.2d 252, 256 (Wyo.1994), we recognized that failure to call an expert witness may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. However, in Bloomquist v. State, 914 P.2d 812 (Wyo.1996), we also stated that the defendant must show that such expert testimony was available and necessary and that [a]ppellant must show that an expert was available who would have testified consistently with his theory. Id. at 820. Barkell fails to make such a showing, but invites us to speculate about what type of expert and what type of testimony could have assisted his defense. We decline to engage in such speculation to overcome the strong presumption of adequate assistance. [¶ 17] The decision not to call a witness is a strategic choice, normally within the judgment of counsel and will not be second-guessed with the benefit of hindsight absent the specific showing required by McCoy and Bloomquist. Eustice, 11 P.3d at 904-05.