Opinion ID: 1561405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ineffective AssistanceCompetency of a Child Witness

Text: Floyd first contends that trial counsel was ineffective for the failure to investigate and challenge the competency of a child witness. This claim is without merit. Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), this Court has held that for ineffective assistance of counsel claims to be successful, two requirements must be met. First, the defendant must establish that counsel's performance was deficient. Second, the defendant must establish that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced him or her. See Carratelli v. State, 961 So.2d 312, 320 (Fla.2007) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052); Mendoza v. State, 964 So.2d 121, 127 (Fla.2007); Philmore v. State, 937 So.2d 578, 583 (Fla.2006). To establish deficiency under Strickland, the defendant must prove that counsel's performance was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms. Morris v. State, 931 So.2d 821, 828 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052). To establish prejudice, the defendant must prove that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052). Both prongs of the Strickland test present mixed questions of law and fact. For this reason, we employ a mixed standard of reviewdeferral to the factual findings of the circuit court that are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but de novo review of legal conclusions. See Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766, 771-72 (Fla.2004). There is a strong presumption that the performance of trial counsel was not ineffective. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To fairly assess attorney performance, every effort must be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of the challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from the perspective of counsel at the time. See id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The defendant bears the burden to overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action `might be considered sound trial strategy.' Id. (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)). Accordingly, judicial scrutiny of the performance by trial counsel must be highly deferential. See id. In Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000), we explained that strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel's decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct. In Florida, whether a child witness is competent to testify is based on his or her intelligence, rather than his or her age, and, in addition, whether the child possesses a sense of obligation to tell the truth. Lloyd v. State, 524 So.2d 396, 400 (Fla.1988); see Bell v. State, 93 So.2d 575, 577 (Fla.1957). Accordingly, when evaluating the competency of a child, the trial court should consider the following: (1) whether the child is capable of observing and recollecting facts; (2) whether the child is capable of narrating those facts to the court or to a jury, and (3) whether the child has a moral sense of the obligation to tell the truth. Griffin v. State, 526 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (citing Lloyd, 524 So.2d at 400); see also Baker v. State, 674 So.2d 199, 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The trial judge has the discretion to decide whether a witness of tender age is competent to testify and, accordingly, the decision to allow a child to testify is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Lloyd, 524 So.2d at 400. Here, a sufficient factual basis existed for trial counsel to reasonably conclude that LaJade and J.J. were competent witnesses. Trial counsel deposed both children before trial and had the opportunity to observe their demeanor. At these depositions, counsel questioned the children about their relationships with the victim and the defendant, their memories of the murder, and their abilities to relate the event truthfully. Each child answered the questions clearly and consistently. Despite a few minor discrepancies (which were understandable due to the speed at which the events unfolded, and the shocking effect of witnessing their grandmother's murder), the versions of the event given by these two prospective witnesses corroborated each other. Therefore, it was reasonable for trial counsel to rely upon what he observed during the deposition to conclude that LaJade and J.J. were capable of observation and recollection of facts, were capable of narration with regard to those facts, and had a moral sense of the obligation to tell the truth. See Griffin, 526 So.2d at 753. Trial counsel was not deficient when he made a strategic decision not to challenge the qualification of the witnesses by the trial court or otherwise attack the children's competency. During the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel testified that his general practice was not to verbally attack a child unless he could prove with certainty that the child was lying. This practice was consistent with trial counsel's articulated strategy, which was not to antagonize a death qualified jury. Indeed, an attorney who aggressively questions a distressed child runs a high risk of alienating jurors, something which a capital defendant should avoid. Accordingly, the decision of trial counsel here constituted reasonable strategy. We further conclude that Floyd has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by a failure to object. The two child witnesses were sufficiently examined and properly qualified by the court. Specifically, LaJade proved her intelligence level by correctly counting numbers and reciting the alphabet. She also understood her obligation to tell the truth no matter what. Likewise, J.J. established his intelligence in that he stated his education level and the subjects he studied in school, and he made an earnest effort to pass the judge's quiz on mathematics. J.J. also understood the concept of lying, the consequence of lying, and his obligation to tell the truth. Finally, J.J. promised to answer each question truthfully. Based on their answers, the trial court properly concluded that LaJade and J.J. were competent witnesses, and any objection presented by trial counsel would have been meritless. See Baker, 674 So.2d at 200-01 (finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court qualified a six-year-old child after the child demonstrated that she knew her age, where she went to school, where she went to church, and the colors of clothing; the child established that she possessed a sense to tell the truth; and the child stated that she knew it was wrong to lie). Floyd seems to contend that the in-court voir dire examination of LaJade and J.J. was insufficient to establish competency, and that a separate hearing was required. However, a separate hearing has never been required, and Floyd's argument is without merit. See, e.g., Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 216 (Fla. 1988) (child witness questioned on voir dire at the beginning of her videotaped testimony); Bennett v. State, 971 So.2d 196, 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (trial court conducted a competency examination on the morning of the trial). Floyd also suggests that the allegedly contradictory statements of LaJade and J.J. create doubts with regard to the competency of the children to testify. We disagree. Most of these statements are mere imperfect expressions attributable to the witnesses' tender age and do not affect the material portions of the children's testimony. See Lloyd, 524 So.2d at 400 (holding that the inconsistencies in various statements were nothing more than what one could expect from a child of five or six years of age and were not so egregious as to require the total rejection of the testimony). Further, although there was a discrepancy between the testimony of the children with regard to the physical location of Floyd when the third gunshot was fired, [7] this discrepancy can be explained by the location of the witnesses, each of whom had a different view from which to observe the shooting. Accordingly, the failure to challenge the competency of the child witnesses did not render trial counsel ineffective.