Court Opinion

ID: 9899285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 17:05:40.049334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:16.963679
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                        Nov 16 2023, 9:05 am

                                                                            CLERK
                                                                        Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                           Court of Appeals
                                                                             and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Lisa Johnson                                              Theodore E. Rokita
Brownsburg, Indiana                                       Indiana Attorney General
                                                          Indianapolis, Indiana
                                                          Courtney Staton
                                                          Deputy Attorney General
                                                          Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Steven E. Malloch,                                        November 16, 2023
Appellant-Petitioner,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                          22A-PC-2053
        v.                                                Appeal from the DeKalb Superior
                                                          Court
State of Indiana,                                         The Honorable Monte L. Brown,
Appellee-Respondent                                       Judge
                                                          Trial Court Cause No.
                                                          17D02-1401-PC-000001

                                Opinion by Judge May
                     Chief Judge Altice and Judge Bradford concur.

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023                           Page 1 of 37
[1]   Steven E. Malloch appeals following the denial of his petition for post-

      conviction relief. Malloch presents one issue, which we revise and restate as

      whether the post-conviction court erred when it determined Malloch’s trial

      counsel did not provide ineffective assistance when he did not present expert

      testimony regarding:

              1. the susceptibility of individuals to give false confessions; and

              2. a sleep disorder called sexsomnia.

      We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   On direct appeal, we recited the pertinent facts regarding Malloch’s underlying

      criminal conviction as follows:

              In 1998, Malloch began living with Anita Malloch and her four-
              year-old daughter C.P., who was born in 1993. Malloch and
              Anita married in 1999 and subsequently had three sons. C.P. had
              regular parenting time with her biological father but primarily
              lived in the Malloch home. She called Malloch “Dad.”

              In 2003 and 2004, when C.P. was in fourth grade, the family
              lived in Auburn, Indiana, next to a cemetery. C.P. was
              sometimes scared at night because of the cemetery and would ask
              Anita or Malloch to lie down with her. On one occasion when
              Malloch lay with C.P., she awoke with his hand underneath her
              shirt on her breast. Malloch appeared to be asleep. C.P. removed
              his hand, rolled over, and went back to sleep. She never talked
              with him about the incident.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023         Page 2 of 37
        In June 2004, the family moved to a ten-acre property in Garrett,
        Indiana. They lived in a small apartment in a barn until March
        2005, when construction of their house was completed. At some
        point while they lived in the barn, C.P. watched a werewolf
        movie and was scared to go to bed. She first asked Anita to lie
        down with her, but when Anita told her she was busy, she asked
        Malloch. C.P. fell asleep in her bed with Malloch beside her.
        When she woke up, Malloch’s hand was in her underwear and
        his finger was in her vagina. Again, Malloch appeared to be
        asleep. C.P. pulled his hand out of her pants, crawled over him,
        and slept with her then-six-year-old brother in his bed. The next
        morning, Malloch asked C.P. why she ended up in her brother’s
        bed. C.P. answered, “[B]ecause.” She never asked him to lie
        down with her again.

        At some point while the family still lived in the barn, Anita
        watched an episode of “Dr. Phil” about child molesting and
        asked C.P. whether she had ever been touched. C.P. told Anita
        what had happened with Malloch. When Anita confronted
        Malloch, he claimed that he did not know what Anita was
        talking about and that if anything had happened, it had happened
        while he was asleep.

        Roughly five years later, Anita told her counselor about the two
        incidents. On January 22, 2010, Anita’s counselor reported the
        matter to Jennifer Hupfer, a caseworker for the Department of
        Child Services, who in turn notified Detective Donald Lauer of
        the DeKalb County Sheriff’s Department. Later that day, Hupfer
        and Detective Lauer went to the Malloch home and informed
        Malloch of the allegations. Malloch said he was asleep and woke
        up to find his finger in C.P.’s vagina. He agreed to go to the
        Sheriff’s Department for a formal interview and drove himself
        there.

        Detective Lauer conducted two interviews with Malloch in his
        office. Before the first interview, Detective Lauer read Malloch
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023      Page 3 of 37
        his Miranda rights, and Malloch indicated that he understood
        them, had no questions about them, and wished to talk. During
        this interview, Detective Lauer employed the two-part Reid
        Technique, which he later described at trial as the “gold standard
        of . . . police interviewing.” The first phase of the Reid Technique
        consists of nonaccusatory questioning. The interview then shifts
        to the second phase, where the questioner does most of the
        talking and claims that the investigation clearly shows that the
        suspect committed the crime. A questioner using the Reid
        Technique introduces “different minimizing themes,” in essence
        excuses or justifications, to make it easier and more comfortable
        for the suspect to admit to the crime.

        In the first phase here, Detective Lauer explained that his job was
        to separate the “small percentage of people . . . who prey on
        people” from “average good guys, like you and me, who make a
        mistake . . . and . . . accept responsibility.” Malloch told
        Detective Lauer he was in bed with C.P. because she was scared,
        he woke to find his hand in her pants and his finger in her
        vagina, he pulled his hand out, and C.P. kicked him off the bed.
        He also admitted to the earlier incident, when his hand was
        underneath C.P.’s shirt on her breast, but claimed that he had
        woken up that way and thought she was asleep when he got up
        and went to his room.

        Detective Lauer said he had to determine whether Malloch was
        asleep or not and whether he was a “bad guy” or “not so bad
        guy.” Malloch claimed he was being honest. Detective Lauer
        then asked if he had ever had sexual thoughts about C.P.
        Malloch responded, “No . .. . . I mean, she’s a pretty girl, and,
        you know—and she walks around in—in her underwear at times,
        and stuff like that, but I—I’m always like, ‘Put your clothes’—
        you know, ‘Get clothes on,’ I—you know, that ‘You don’t need
        to be doing that.’” Detective Lauer asked Malloch about a
        polygraph test, and Malloch responded that he would be willing

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023     Page 4 of 37
        to take the test. Malloch said he felt responsible for the incidents
        because he was the adult and being asleep was not an excuse.

        Detective Lauer then said C.P. had told him that at some point
        she was “sitting downstairs like in her underwear and bra and
        stuff, kind of inappropriate, I think, I mean she shouldn’t of [sic]
        been doing that, I guess, I mean that’s on—that’s on her, I mean,
        she should . . . know better than to . . . be doing that.” Malloch
        later offered, “I would suppress the thought. You know, if—see
        her standing at the sink, or whatever, kind of a thing, you know,
        I—I would throw it out of my mind, I would say ‘That’s not
        right,’ you know.” Malloch explained how he would walk away
        from the situation and offered this vignette: “[T]wo months ago,
        or something, walking upstairs, to go to bed, and [C.P.]’s door is
        cracked, and she was standing there taking off her shirt, and I
        mean, I saw her breasts, but then I went to my room.”

        Detective Lauer asked whether, assuming Malloch was awake, it
        was “kind of just a spur of the moment type thing, or—some
        guys actually will sit and plot out a way[.] . . . I call those people
        . . . the one percenters, those luckily are the—the people that are
        few and far between.” Malloch claimed it would have been spur
        of the moment. Detective Lauer then left the room. This portion
        of the interview was about thirty minutes.

        When Detective Lauer returned, he sat closer to Malloch and
        said, “[M]y investigation clearly shows that you touched her, and
        you were awake when you did that, this was a conscious thing
        that you did.” Malloch said that he woke up to it, but Detective
        Lauer said:

                 No, you were awake when you did it, . . . that was a
                 conscious thing, . . . you were awake when you did that.
                 Now, what I need to find out is certain other things like,
                 was this a spur of the moment thing, you know, and that’s

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023          Page 5 of 37
                 what we need to talk about, because, like I said, I’ve got to
                 figure out what kind of guy is Steve.

        Detective Lauer offered many minimizing themes, including that
        it was good that the incidents occurred when C.P. was asleep
        because maybe she would not remember what happened, that
        C.P. was a pretty girl and was “walking around half naked,” that
        Malloch was a guy and was “gonna have those thoughts,” that
        maybe there were “tough things going on” in Malloch’s life at the
        time, and that maybe his wife “turned off the faucet and there
        wasn’t any, you know, sexual activity or something.” Malloch
        admitted that he was awake when he put his hand on C.P.’s
        breast:

                 DETECTIVE: So, what I want to know, I guess, is—is—I
                 mean, I can just keep babbling here, but I need to know
                 what’s going on—what was going on in your head when
                 that happened., [sic] And, you were awake, don’t tell me
                 you—because, you—you—

                 MR. MALLOCH: I—I—the hand in the shirt, yes.

        Malloch claimed he touched C.P.’s breast to see if she was
        developing and said he was not sure if he was awake when he put
        his finger in her vagina:

                 MR. MALLOCH: I—with the hand thing, it was a—I
                 mean, does she have boobs, kind of a thin[g], you know,
                 at—at this age, and—

                 DETECTIVE: So, you were curious if she had breasts,
                 or—

                 MR. MALLOCH: Yeah.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023        Page 6 of 37
                 DETECTIVE: What about the hands in the pants thing?
                 You were not asleep.

                 MR. MALLOCH: Okay, maybe I was—I—

                 DETECTIVE: There’s no “maybe”—

                 MR. MALLOCH: No, no—

                 DETECTIVE: —you were either awake, you weren’t
                 awake, that-I don’t want to dance around playing this
                 game.

        Later on, Detective Lauer asked Malloch how long his finger was
        in C.P.’s vagina, which led to Malloch saying for the first time
        that he was awake at the time, but which he then appeared to
        take back:

                 DETECTIVE: How long was your finger inside of her?

                 MR. MALLOCH: Two seconds, three seconds.

                 DETECTIVE: Okay. And, how do you know that?

                 MR. MALLOCH: I just—well, I mean, because I—when
                 I—I still believe that I woke up from it. I—I understand
                 you don’t believe it, but—and—and, I don’t know how I
                 need-how I get that—or, how I get it out of myself, that I
                 wasn’t asleep.

                 DETECTIVE: Maybe you’ve tried to convince yourself all
                 these years that you—you were (sic) awake, that was a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023         Page 7 of 37
                 conscious decision. That doesn’t happen—that doesn’t
                 happen.

                 MR. MALLOCH: It happens to my wife, or with me and
                 my wife.

                 DETECTIVE: I’ve talked to your wife. It doesn’t happen
                 in your sleep. Your wife doesn’t believe it. I mean, I’m
                 sorry to tell you that—that she doesn’t. Nobody’s gonna
                 believe that—that story. And, what that—what that shows
                 is, a young man unwilling to accept responsibility, that’s
                 what that says to me, that’s what I recognize. And, all I
                 want you to do here is tell the truth.

                 MR. MALLOCH: Okay.

                 DETECTIVE: That’s all I want, is the truth. And—and we
                 investigate—

                 MR. MALLOCH: I laid down with her, and after she was
                 asleep for a while, put my hand down her pants and
                 touched her.

                 DETECTIVE: And, how long did you do that?

                 MR. MALLOCH: A few seconds.

                 DETECTIVE: Why just a few seconds?

                 MR. MALLOCH: Because, I—reality kicked in.

                 DETECTIVE: Was it that you woke up?

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023     Page 8 of 37
                 MR. MALLOCH: Well, see that’s what—

                 DETECTIVE: Yeah, I—I think you’re just playing games
                 here.

                 MR. MALLOCH: Well, I—

                 DETECTIVE: I’m not trying—I’m not trying to tell you—

                 MR. MALLOCH:—you’re trying to tell me what I need to
                 say.

                 DETECTIVE: No, I’m not tell—I will not tell you what to
                 say. I am telling you, tell the truth.

        Malloch claimed he was telling the truth. Detective Lauer stated
        that he had to determine whether Malloch was a pedophile or a
        pervert or whether he was a guy who made a mistake. When
        Malloch continued to say he was asleep, Detective Lauer called
        the claim “hogwash.” He also said that Malloch was “not man
        enough to accept responsibility.” Soon after, Detective Lauer told
        Malloch he could tell his story to a jury, and Malloch admitted
        for a second time that he was awake when he put his finger in
        C.P.’s vagina:

                 DETECTIVE: That may be what you’ve tried to convince
                 yourself all this time, but—and, I’ll tell you what, Steve,
                 I’m not gonna spend much more time here listen—
                 listening to this, because I will just arrest you and you can
                 go into court and you can tell 12 people—first of all, you
                 can make your daughter get up and testify against you,
                 and then you can tell 12 people, ‘Yes, I was sleeping, and I
                 woke up, and my hand was inside her vagina. Oh, and by

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023        Page 9 of 37
                 the way, I also stuck my hand up her shirt to make sure
                 she had breasts.’

                 MR. MALLOCH: And, so I laid down with her, and
                 woke up, put my hand down her pants, realized it was
                 wrong, pulled my hand out, and she woke up at that point
                 and kicked me out of bed.

                 DETECTIVE: Is that true, or are you just trying to—I
                 want to know what the truth is. I don’t want to put words
                 in your mouth, I want to hear you tell me what happened,
                 what was going through your head when that happened.
                 Because, that’s what’s important, what’s going on up
                 here—

                 MR. MALLOCH: Right.

                 DETECTIVE: —and what’s going on right now are the
                 important things. Whether you’re man enough to accept
                 responsibility, and show a judge that you’re remorseful,
                 and how you show remorseful is by saying, ‘Yes, this is
                 what I did, it’s never gonna happen again, I learned my
                 lesson.’

        However, Malloch later indicated that he was asleep: “I
        remember laying down, with my back to her, and I remember
        waking up, pulling my hand out of her pants, and getting kicked
        on to the floor, and then getting into my bed. I can’t remember
        the—initiating it. I cannot remember that.”

        When Malloch continued to insist that he could not remember
        consciously putting his finger in C.P.’s vagina, Detective Lauer
        said, “You know why you can’t remember it . . . it’s dawning on
        me now, because you’re one of the one percenter guys.” He also

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023       Page 10 of 37
        said, “You don’t have the stones to say it, that’s the problem.” At
        the conclusion of the interview, Detective Lauer arrested
        Malloch and told him he would come back in if Malloch wanted
        to talk further. The entire first interview was about an hour and
        twenty-five minutes.

        Detective Lauer turned Malloch over to Jeremy Heffelfinger, the
        intake officer, and had nothing to do with where he was placed in
        the jail. It took about an hour for Malloch to go through the
        intake process and make a phone call. Heffelfinger then placed
        Malloch twenty feet from his desk in a cell with Jeffrey Cain, an
        accused murderer. Heffelfinger placed Malloch there so he could
        monitor any shock Malloch might have from being in jail for the
        first time and being charged with a severe crime. It was also the
        only available space. Although one other holding cell had just
        one man in it, that person was a trouble maker, which was in
        stark contrast to Cain, who had never caused any problems in the
        year and a half that he was at the jail.

        Heffelfinger monitored Malloch the entire time he was in the cell.
        He did not notice any problems or tension between Malloch and
        Cain, and neither inmate indicated there were any problems.
        About four hours after Malloch’s first interview ended, Cain got
        Heffelfinger’s attention and said that Malloch wanted to speak
        with him. Malloch asked to speak with Detective Lauer.

        Malloch was escorted out of the jail and back to Detective
        Lauer’s office. Detective Lauer again read Malloch his Miranda
        rights, and Malloch indicated that he understood them. Malloch
        then asked if he was “best advised to speak to a lawyer.”
        Detective Lauer said that it was Malloch’s decision and that he
        could not guide him one way or the other. After a brief
        discussion, Malloch said, “I’ll talk.” Detective Lauer was not
        accusatory during this second interview. Malloch said that he
        had “not good thoughts” about C.P. since 2003. He then
        admitted he was awake and consciously fingered C.P.:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023    Page 11 of 37
                 MR. MALLOCH: But, it happened to be—yeah, I didn’t
                 want to hurt her, she happened to be asleep, and I failed to
                 control myself.

                 DETECTIVE: So, can you tell me then what happened
                 that particular day?

                 MR. MALLOCH: I remember—yeah, laying down—
                 falling asleep, waking up, and this has come to me as I’m
                 laying out there, put my—curious, or whatever, put my
                 hand down there, she stirred, pulled my hand out, and
                 then had gotten kicked out of the bed.

        Detective Lauer gave Malloch an opportunity to write C.P. a
        letter of apology.

        The State charged Malloch with two counts of child molesting,
        one as a Class A felony and one as a Class C felony. In
        December 2010, Malloch moved to dismiss the Class C felony on
        the basis that it was filed beyond the statute of limitations period
        and moved to suppress his statements to Detective Lauer on the
        basis that they were involuntarily made. After a hearing, the trial
        court dismissed the Class C felony and denied the motion to
        suppress.

Malloch v. State, 980 N.E.2d 887, 892-97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (internal Record

citations and footnote omitted), trans. denied. The trial court held Malloch’s first

jury trial in June 2011. Malloch did not present any expert testimony during

the first jury trial, and the jury deadlocked. The trial court declared a mistrial

and immediately scheduled Malloch’s retrial for September 12, 13, and 14,

2011.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023      Page 12 of 37
[3]   On September 1, 2011, the parties took a discovery deposition of Dr. Neeraj

      Kaplish, a physician and clinical assistant professor at the University of

      Michigan, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. An associate general counsel with

      University of Michigan Health Systems represented Dr. Kaplish during the

      deposition. Dr. Kaplish testified regarding his curriculum vitae. He had

      completed two fellowships in sleep medicine and published on the topics of

      parasomnias and narcolepsy. He also explained that parasomnias “are

      unprovoked, unpleasant, complex motor behaviors that can occur out of sleep.”

      (D.A. State’s Ex. 1 at 38.) 1 For example, Dr. Kaplish observed that

      sleepwalking is an example of a parasomnia, and he explained that certain

      conditions, like sleep apnea, predispose someone to experience parasomnia.

      He also stated that sexsomnia is another type of parasomnia, and he described

      sexsomnia as “behavior at upper level sleep [that] has sexual connotation.” (Id.

      at 10.) The activity “could range from sexual frantic moaning and groaning, to

      self-stimulation, to sexual assault and sexual intercourse.” (Id. at 34.) Dr.

      Kaplish also explained that while he had read peer-reviewed articles about

      sexsomnia, he had not published on the topic, nor had he conducted any

      studies regarding sexsomnia. Dr. Kaplish’s knowledge was limited to his

      review of the literature, and he did not know whether scientists had observed

      sexsomniac behavior in a lab setting or whether any rate of error had been

      1
        This citation refers to State’s Exhibit 1 in the record of Malloch’s direct appeal and entered into evidence by
      the State during the September 9, 2011, hearing on Malloch’s motion to continue his trial. Page number
      citations are to the page numbers listed on the deposition transcript.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023                              Page 13 of 37
      established for the diagnosis. Dr. Kaplish also was not aware of what

      percentage of the general population had been diagnosed with sexsomnia.

[4]   Dr. Kaplish reported he had consulted with Malloch for the first time in

      February of 2010 after Malloch’s doctor in Fort Wayne referred Malloch to Dr.

      Kaplish. Dr. Kaplish ordered that Malloch undergo two sleep studies and

      found that Malloch had sleep apnea. Dr. Kaplish subsequently diagnosed

      Malloch with sexsomnia. Dr. Kaplish explained that Malloch was the only

      patient he had ever diagnosed with sexsomnia. Dr. Kaplish also acknowledged

      he relied on the personal history Malloch relayed to him in diagnosing Malloch

      and his diagnosis could be incorrect if Malloch had lied to him.

[5]   Malloch’s trial counsel, John Bohdan, asked Dr. Kaplish if he received the

      Indiana subpoena Attorney Bohdan had sent him regarding Malloch’s trial.

      Dr. Kaplish acknowledged receipt of the subpoena, but he stated he was not

      sure if he would be available to testify at the time of Malloch’s trial. Dr.

      Kaplish’s attorney conveyed he would keep Attorney Bohdan apprised of Dr.

      Kaplish’s availability.

[6]   Once Attorney Bohdan definitively learned Dr. Kaplish was not available to

      testify at Malloch’s trial, he filed a motion to continue the second trial. During

      a hearing on the motion on September 9, 2011, Attorney Bohdan explained he

      filed the continuance because Dr. Kaplish was unavailable to testify, and Dr.

      Kaplish had “offered the diagnosis that Steven Malloch does experience

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023     Page 14 of 37
parasomnia and specifically sexsomnia[.]” (D.A. Tr. Vol. I at 185.) 2 Attorney

Bohdan described Dr. Kaplish’s testimony as “critical[.]” (Id.) He observed:

        [W]e had roughly ninety (90) days between the last trial and the
        currently scheduled trial and very early on in that process . . . as
        Mr. Malloch and I assessed what had happened in the first trial
        and assessed how to approach it in the second trial it became
        clear to us that the testimony of Dr. Kaplish . . . is more than
        adjunct or some little corollary testimony, it has a real value and
        a real importance in this case. He had been previously identified
        as a potential witness. Obviously, he wasn’t called in the first
        trial . . . but we made the decision then that we need to call him
        in the second trial.

(Id. at 186.) Attorney Bohdan noted that Dr. Kaplish’s deposition for discovery

purposes occurred on September 1, 2011, and he stated that “at that time and

pretty much almost every business day since that deposition I have struggled . .

. to try to . . . get an answer as to availability for a live appearance at trial in this

cause or in the alternative to coordinate an evidentiary deposition.” (Id. at

187.) The State opposed Malloch’s motion to continue. The State summarized

the confession Malloch gave to Detective Lauer, and the State pointed to

portions of Dr. Kaplish’s deposition testimony where Dr. Kaplish admitted the

limits of his knowledge about sexsomnia. The State also noted that Dr. Kaplish

lived and practiced in Michigan and Attorney Bohdan failed to follow the

2
 We will refer to the Transcript produced for Malloch’s direct appeal of his conviction as “D.A. Tr.” In
contrast, we will designate the Transcript produced from Malloch’s post-conviction proceedings as simply
“Tr.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023                         Page 15 of 37
      proper procedure for subpoenaing an out-of-state witness. The trial court

      denied Malloch’s motion to continue.

[7]   Malloch’s second trial began on September 12, 2011. In his opening statement,

      Attorney Bohdan laid out Malloch’s theory of the case, which was that Malloch

      “was badgered, pressured, tricked, cajoled, and coerced” into giving a false

      confession, (D.A. Tr. Vol. II at 351), and that he was asleep when his hand

      penetrated C.P.’s vagina. Attorney Bohdan explained:

              The evidence will show that the statements that the State seeks to
              build its case around . . . were not voluntary, were not valid and
              were not true and you’ll be able on seeing these to see the signs
              that show you how that is possible, how that came to be. It will
              show these statements to be products of a clever interviewing
              technique. The State tells you well, this is generally referred to as
              [Reid] techniques of interviewing. You’ll see the evidence that
              whether intentionally done or not these techniques produce
              unreliable, inaccurate and untrue statements.

      (Id. at 357.)

[8]   C.P. testified that when she was approximately eleven years old, she lay down

      with Malloch in a twin bed after watching a scary movie and fell asleep. She

      “woke up with his hand in [her] underwear and his finger in [her] vagina.” (Id.

      at 374.) “[C.P.] looked at him and his eyes were shut and then [C.P.] removed

      his hand from [her] underwear.” (Id. at 375.) C.P. then left the twin bed and

      slept the rest of the night next to her brother in her brother’s bed.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023      Page 16 of 37
[9]    Detective Lauer testified that he employed the Reid Technique in interrogating

       Malloch. The State played videos of Detective Lauer’s interrogations of

       Malloch for the jury, and Attorney Bohdan questioned Detective Lauer about

       his interrogations of Malloch. During this questioning, Detective Lauer

       admitted he challenged Malloch’s statements that he did not remember

       inserting his finger into C.P.’s vagina or that he was asleep when it occurred,

       but Detective Lauer did not challenge Malloch’s statements when Malloch

       stated he was awake. Attorney Bohdan also questioned Detective Lauer about

       discrepancies between what C.P. said happened and Malloch’s confession. In

       addition, Attorney Bohdan asked Detective Lauer about his training in the Reid

       Technique, and Detective Lauer explained: “To be honest, I don’t think in the

       class we spent a whole lot of time on false confessions.” (Id. at 492.) Detective

       Lauer also testified that his understanding was that “false confessions are

       typically . . . done by people who are mentally ill or a very low IQ[.]” (Id.)

[10]   Malloch testified that he generally slept in the same bed as his wife, Anita

       Malloch. He explained:

               [Attorney Bohdan:] Specifically as to what you would have
               personal knowledge, not what somebody else may have told you,
               uh, what do you know about your own practice or habits when it
               comes to touching your wife?

               [Malloch:] I have woken up, uh, you know, again, I was messing
               around with her vagina, uh, and when I would wake up to that I
               [sic] would usually lead to intercourse or, um, and go back to
               sleep.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023    Page 17 of 37
       (D.A. Tr. Vol. III at 550.)

[11]   With respect to the incident in which Malloch’s finger penetrated C.P.’s vagina,

       Malloch testified:

               Um, I recall waking up and my recollection is, uh, waking up
               and my hand was, realizing that it was [C.P.] that I was next to,
               my hand was down her pants and my finger was touching her
               female sex area. Uh, and pulling my hand out and I remember
               getting kicked out of bed.

       (Id. at 553.) Malloch denied intentionally touching C.P.’s vagina. Malloch

       stated that when he tried to explain to Detective Laurer that he was asleep

       when he touched C.P., Detective Laurer did not believe him, and he described

       the interrogation as “very emotionally draining and physically draining[.]” (Id.

       at 563.) Malloch testified that he was “in shock” after being arrested and felt

       “[h]umiliated.” (Id. at 567.) Malloch further explained:

               [Attorney Bohdan:] Why did you ask to speak to [Detective
               Lauer] again?

               [Malloch:] Cause I didn’t want to be, I didn’t want to be
               classified as this one percenter. I didn’t want, uh, I felt in order
               to not be this one percenter, to because he wasn’t going to write
               in a report that I was this good guy that, uh, made a mistake and
               give that to the Prosecutor instead he’d write that I denied
               everything and he’s this bad guy, um, I wanted my report to be
               favorable.

       (Id. at 572-73.) Malloch testified that he believed he suffered from sexsomnia.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023      Page 18 of 37
[12]   Anita Malloch stated that Malloch “will fondle [her] vagina or [her] vaginal

       area in the night while we are asleep.” (Id. at 636.) Anita Malloch testified that

       she initially told Detective Lauer she was not sure she believed Malloch’s claim

       that he was asleep when he fingered C.P. because she “was convinced that day

       by [her] counselor that it cannot happen in your sleep and that [she] should be

       concerned for [her] boys.” (Id. at 674.)

[13]   The jury returned a guilty verdict, and the trial court held Malloch’s sentencing

       hearing on November 28, 2011. The trial court sentenced Malloch to a term of

       thirty years. The trial court ordered Malloch to serve twenty-eight years in the

       Indiana Department of Correction, and the trial court suspended the remaining

       two years of his sentence to probation.

[14]   Malloch appealed his conviction and raised five issues in his direct appeal:

               I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying
               Malloch’s motion for a continuance made three days before trial.

               II. Whether the trial court erred by admitting Malloch’s
               statements in two videorecorded interviews, in which he
               ultimately confessed to the crime.

               III. Whether it was fundamental error for the trial court to allow
               without admonishment the interrogating detective’s repeated
               assertions during the videorecorded interviews that Malloch was
               guilty.

               IV. Whether the trial court erred by admitting Malloch’s apology
               letter to his stepdaughter.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023   Page 19 of 37
               V. Whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct
               amounting to fundamental error.

       Malloch, 980 N.E.2d at 892. We held the trial court did not abuse its discretion

       in denying Malloch’s motion to continue the trial because there was no

       evidence Dr. Kaplish “was ever properly subpoenaed” and Dr. Kaplish “would

       not commit to appearing at trial.” Id. at 898. We also noted the crime had

       occurred seven years before the scheduled trial date and the trial court could not

       easily reschedule the trial due to court congestion. Id. We further held

       Detective Lauer properly advised Malloch of his rights pursuant to Miranda v.

       Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), prior to interrogating him and

       Malloch did not make an unambiguous and unequivocal invocation of his right

       for counsel. Malloch, 980 N.E.2d at 900-01. We concluded Malloch’s

       statements were voluntary under both the federal and state constitutions. Id. at

       903. Likewise, we held the trial court did not err in admitting the apology letter

       Malloch wrote to C.P. Id. at 905. Lastly, we held two improper statements

       made by the State during its closing argument did not constitute fundamental

       error. Id. at 911.

[15]   On January 31, 2014, Malloch filed a petition for post-conviction relief and he

       filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief on April 18, 2019. Malloch

       alleged he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his attorney

       “failed to investigate the personal and psychological characteristics that made

       Mr. Malloch more vulnerable than other individuals to having given a false

       confession,” (App. Vol. II at 56), and “failed to hire or procure an expert able to

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023    Page 20 of 37
       educate the jury regarding the sleep disorder that was Mr. Malloch’s principle

       defense, particularly as that disorder related to Mr. Malloch’s interrogation.” 3

       (Id. at 58.)

[16]   The post-conviction court held a bifurcated evidentiary hearing regarding

       Malloch’s petition on June 21, 2021, and January 28, 2022. Malloch called Dr.

       Michael Cramer Bornemann as an expert witness at the evidentiary hearing.

       Dr. Bornemann, a physician and former assistant professor of neurology and

       internal medicine at the University of Minnesota, explained that parasomnias

       are “the unwanted and inappropriate . . . experiences or behaviors that arise

       from the platform of sleep.” (Tr. Vol. II at 11.) Common parasomnias include

       nightmares, sleepwalking, and sleep talking, but they “can also involve a

       complex set of behaviors that can have clinical or . . . forensic complications.”

       (Id.) Parasomnias result from “electrical switching errors” in the brain. (Id. at

       25.) A parasomnia is “essentially, a neurologic condition and not a psychiatric

       condition as Freud might lead us to believe.” (Id. at 14.) Dr. Bornemann

       testified that sexsomnia or “sleep related abnormal sexual behavior” is an

       internationally recognized parasomnia. (Id. at 30.) He explained that “stress

       and anxiety” and “sleep deprivation” make sexsomnia more likely, (id. at 32),

       and an experienced health care provider is necessary to properly diagnose the

       3
         Malloch also asserted in his petition that his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not object to
       statements made by the prosecutor during the State’s closing argument and that Malloch was entitled to post-
       conviction relief because several jurors lied during voir dire. However, Malloch does not challenge on appeal
       the post-conviction court’s rulings against Malloch on these claims.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023                          Page 21 of 37
       condition. Dr. Bornemann also testified on cross-examination by the State that

       he would be “concerned” if someone claiming to have suffered from sexsomnia

       had admitted to previously touching an underage girl’s bare breast. (Id. at 44.)

[17]   Dr. Deborah Davis, a psychology professor at the University of Nevada and

       faculty member at the National Judicial College, also testified at the evidentiary

       hearing regarding her research into the psychology behind false confessions.

       Dr. Davis explained DNA evidence has exonerated many individuals who gave

       false confessions and, more than once, multiple individuals confessed to a crime

       that only one person committed. She described how certain interrogation

       tactics lead to false confessions. She explained that an individual might falsely

       confess because of feelings of stress and a need to escape. In addition, someone

       might make a false confession if the interrogator convinces the person that

       confession is in the person’s best interest or if the person is overly deferential

       toward authority figures. Dr. Davis explained that the Reid Technique was at

       one time the most popular interrogation technique used by law enforcement,

       but that psychologists began heavily criticizing the method in the 1990s. Dr.

       Davis explained that while the characteristics of youth, low intelligence, and

       mental illness may make an individual more vulnerable to giving a false

       confession, even people with “IQ’s [sic] higher than Einstein” have been proven

       to have falsely confessed. (Id. at 133.)

[18]   Dr. Davis opined that Detective Lauer intended to make Malloch feel hopeless

       by characterizing Malloch’s claim to have been asleep as “ridiculous” and

       saying “nobody’s gonna (sic) believe it.” (Id. at 89) (parenthetical in original).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023      Page 22 of 37
       Dr. Davis noted that Detective Lauer presented Malloch with two options and

       that each option assumed Malloch was guilty – “Steve the nice guy who made a

       mistake” versus “Steve the one percenter (1%) molester who doesn’t care about

       anybody and, you know, uh, [is] basically an evil person.” (Id. at 90.) Dr.

       Davis also discussed how an interrogator employing the Reid Technique will

       try to give a suspect “the illusion that this is a negotiation between the suspect

       and the interrogator that’s gonna (sic) determine his fate.” (Id. at 92-93)

       (parenthetical in original). Dr. Davis pointed out that Detective Lauer

       suggested throughout the interrogation that he believed “Mr. Malloch is a nice

       guy who made a mistake. Um, but he also refers to the threat part . . . you

       know if you’re not gonna (sic) tell me the truth and just keep telling me this

       ridiculous story, I’m just outta (sic) here[.]” (Id. at 99-100) (parentheticals in

       original).

[19]   Attorney Bohdan also testified during the evidentiary hearing. He explained

       that he consulted with two experts regarding Malloch’s confession. Gerald

       Ofshe, a person “widely recognized as a coerced confession . . . expert,” did not

       produce a written opinion, but Attorney Bohdan “used some of the information

       that he gave . . . as it related to responding to the confession issues in the case.”

       (Id. at 153.) After the first trial ended in a hung jury, Attorney Bohdan

       attempted to get Dr. Kaplish to testify at the second trial, but the trial court

       refused Attorney Bohdan’s motion to continue and, ultimately, Attorney

       Bohdan did not call any expert to testify during the second trial. Attorney

       Bohdan testified:

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023      Page 23 of 37
               [Malloch:] Um, did you believe, um, that having [an expert]
               would have been in Mr. Malloch’s best interest?

               [Attorney Bohdan:] Well, if you’re referring to Dr. Kaplish, um,
               I don’t believe it would have harmed Mr. Malloch’s case, um, I
               can only speculate as to how much it would have assisted us.
               That particular witness was-I would characterize as a hybrid, uh,
               fact expert witness. Um, he certainly has expertise in the
               administration of sleep studies, um, but in terms of the, the
               ultimate issue as to a diagnosis of parasomnia and sexsomnia,
               which was, uh, the core argument in our defense, I don’t think he
               was gonna (sic) be able to deliver that to us. But, but he could
               assist in getting the ball closer to the goal.

       (Id. at 155-56) (parenthetical in original). Attorney Bohdan also characterized

       Dr. Kaplish as “not terribly cooperative.” (Id. at 156.)

[20]   In addition, Attorney Bohdan consulted with Dr. Bornemann, but Attorney

       Bohdan decided not to call him to testify. Regarding Dr. Bornemann, Attorney

       Bohdan explained:

               Um, there was- Mr. Malloch and I had enthusiasm for this
               witness, uh, I would credit Steve with finding this gentleman.
               Um, Steve was very involved in, uh, his defense and as I
               understood it, he had actually located this gentleman, uh, had
               communicated with him, um, and a [sic] preliminary indicators,
               um, were good for us. Um, this doctor was aware of the results
               of the sleep study, uh, which were supportive of a parasomnia
               diagnosis. Uh, this doctor was provided, uh, by my office, at his
               request, with copies of discovery materials, particularly, uh, the
               interviews that were conducted by local law enforcement of Mr.
               Malloch. Subsequent to his review of those, uh, records, um, I
               had at least one (1) communication with him by phone and he
               was indicating during that call, that he wasn’t gonna (sic) be able
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023    Page 24 of 37
               to assist us given the nature of the statements in these interviews.
               I told him that our contention was that-uh, particularly the, what
               I’ll call the third interview, uh, which was the most damaging
               interview, uh, that that was – our contention was that was a
               coerced confession. That we were working, uh, to suppress that,
               um, that particular statement, uh, was deemed problematic for
               him to, to support us with an opinion. And that pretty much
               colored my thinking in terms of the ability or inability to use him
               as an expert witness in our case.

       (Id. at 156-57.) Attorney Bohdan did not consult with Dr. Davis about false

       confessions prior to either of Malloch’s trials. Attorney Bohdan testified that he

       had never used a false confession expert in trying approximately 250 criminal

       cases over the course of his career. On August 8, 2022, the post-conviction

       court issued an order with findings of fact and conclusions of law denying

       Malloch’s petition for post-conviction relief because Malloch had not received

       ineffective assistance from Attorney Bohdan.

       Discussion and Decision
[21]   Our standard of review following the denial of a petition for post-conviction

       relief is well-settled:

               A post-conviction petition is not a substitute for an appeal, nor
               does it afford a petitioner a super appeal. Post-conviction
               proceedings afford petitioners a limited opportunity to raise
               issues that were unavailable or unknown at trial and on direct
               appeal. As post-conviction proceedings are civil in nature, the
               petitioner must prove his grounds for relief by a preponderance of
               the evidence. A party appealing a post-conviction judgment
               must establish that the evidence is without conflict and, as a

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023     Page 25 of 37
               whole, unmistakably and unerringly points to a conclusion
               contrary to that reached by the post-conviction court. Where, as
               here, the post-conviction court makes findings of fact and
               conclusions of law in accordance with Indiana Post-Conviction
               Rule 1(6), we do not defer to the court’s legal conclusions, but
               the findings and judgment will be reversed only upon a showing
               of clear error—that which leaves us with a definite and firm
               conviction that a mistake has been made.

       Johnson v. State, 103 N.E.3d 704, 706-07 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (internal

       quotation marks and citations omitted), trans. denied.

[22]   The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that in all

       criminal prosecutions, a defendant is entitled “to have the assistance of counsel

       for his defense.” U.S. Const., Am. VI. This constitutional protection requires

       counsel’s assistance be effective. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686,

       104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), reh’g denied. We presume trial counsel provided

       effective assistance, and the petitioner must present strong evidence to rebut

       that presumption. McCullough v. State, 973 N.E.2d 62, 74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012),

       trans. denied. “Isolated poor strategy, inexperience, or bad tactics does not

       necessarily constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. Rather, the

       petitioner must show both that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient and

       that he was prejudiced by the deficiency. Id. at 75. “When evaluating a

       defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we apply the well-

       established, two-part Strickland test. The defendant must prove: (1) counsel

       rendered deficient performance, meaning counsel’s representation fell below an

       objective standard of reasonableness as gauged by prevailing professional

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023     Page 26 of 37
       norms; and (2) counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant[.]”

       Bobadilla v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1272, 1280 (Ind. 2019) (internal citation omitted).

       “To demonstrate prejudice, the defendant must show a reasonable probability

       that, but for counsel’s errors, the proceedings below would have resulted in a

       different outcome.” Gibson v. State, 133 N.E.3d 673, 682 (Ind. 2019), reh’g

       denied, cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 553 (2020).

       1. False Confession Expert
[23]   Malloch asserts he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when

       Attorney Bohdan failed to call an expert witness on false confessions. He notes

       that such expert witnesses were utilized by the defendants in both Miller v. State,

       770 N.E.2d 763, 774 (Ind. 2002) (holding trial court committed reversible error

       by excluding testimony from a psychological expert on coerced confessions),

       and Shelby v. State, 986 N.E.2d 345, 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (observing “that

       experts may testify on the general subjects of coercive police interrogation and

       false or coerced confessions”). Malloch contends “most lay people are not

       aware that false confessions happen. They do not understand the psychology

       behind modern police interrogation tactics or the ways in which those tactics

       can produce false confessions.” (Appellant’s Br. at 43) (internal footnote

       omitted). Therefore, he asserts “the jury was likely to view Malloch’s

       confession as extremely compelling proof of guilt. Expert testimony, regarding

       false confessions and the reasons they occur, was essential to Malloch’s

       defense.” (Id. at 44) (internal footnote omitted).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023    Page 27 of 37
[24]   However, when we evaluate a petition for post-conviction relief, we afford trial

       counsel “considerable discretion in choosing strategy and tactics, and these

       decisions are entitled to deferential review.” Bradbury v. State, 180 N.E.3d 249,

       252 (Ind. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 261 (2022). The Sixth Amendment

       requires reasonable competence, not a perfect trial strategy judged with the

       benefit of hindsight. Id. “A decision regarding what witnesses to call is a

       matter of trial strategy which an appellate court will not second-guess[.]” Brown

       v. State, 691 N.E.2d 438, 447 (Ind. 1998). “Rare are the situations in which the

       wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions will be limited to

       any one technique or approach.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 106, 131 S.

       Ct. 770, 789 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

[25]   Attorney Bohdan explained in his opening statement that Malloch’s defense

       was going to be that his confession was false. He stated: “Who would confess

       to a crime they did not commit? Well, the evidence in this case is going to

       show ladies and gentlemen, Steve Malloch did just that.” (Tr. Vol. II at 351.)

       He argued the statements Malloch made in the second recorded interview

       “were not voluntary, were not valid and were not true[.]” (Id. at 357.)

       Attorney Bohdan described them as the “products of a clever interviewing

       technique.” (Id.) Attorney Bohdan also used information he learned after

       consulting with experts on coerced confessions to frame his cross-examination

       of Detective Lauer. His questioning of Detective Lauer highlighted that even

       though Detective Lauer challenged Malloch’s account when Malloch stated he

       was asleep when he touched C.P., Detective Lauer did not challenge Malloch’s

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023     Page 28 of 37
       account when Malloch said he intentionally touched C.P. Attorney Bohdan’s

       cross-examination of Detective Lauer also emphasized that while there is no

       legal distinction between a “good child molester” and a “bad child molester,”

       Detective Lauer’s interrogation of Malloch implied that there was one. (Id. at

       496.) Malloch himself testified that it was very upsetting to him when

       Detective Lauer accused him of being “a one percenter.” (Tr. Vol. III at 564.)

       Malloch believed that if he did not say that he “made a mistake” and

       consciously touched C.P., he would be classified as a “one percenter who goes

       around and prays [sic] on little children.” (Id. at 565.) Malloch believed he

       would benefit from not being labeled a “one percenter[.]” (Id.) Finally, in his

       closing argument, Attorney Bohdan argued Detective Lauer used manipulative

       interrogation tactics to illicit a false confession from Malloch.

[26]   “[W]e do not second-guess strategic decisions requiring reasonable professional

       judgment even if the strategy or tactic, in hindsight, did not best serve the

       defendant’s interests.” State v. Moore, 678 N.E.2d 1258, 1261 (Ind. 1997), reh’g

       denied, cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1528 (1998). Attorney Bohdan placed before the

       jury the theory that Malloch’s confession was false and the result of police

       pressure. He made the strategic decision to advance this theory through his

       cross-examination of Detective Lauer and through Malloch’s own testimony

       rather than through proffering an expert witness. This was a reasonable tactical

       decision, and we hold that Attorney Bohdan did not perform deficiently in

       choosing not to call an expert witness on the subject of false confessions. See,

       e.g., Troutman v. State, 730 N.E.2d 149, 154-55 (Ind. 2000) (holding trial

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023    Page 29 of 37
       counsel’s decision not to call a rebuttal expert witness after cross-examining the

       State’s expert witness was a reasonable strategic decision).

       2. Sleep Expert
[27]   Second, Malloch asserts Attorney Bohdan provided ineffective assistance in

       failing to call an expert witness to testify about sexsomnia. He argues that a

       “minimally competent defense attorney would have secured the testimony of a

       qualified expert.” (Appellant’s Br. at 58.) In Liao v. Junious, the United States

       Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the petitioner was entitled to federal

       habeas corpus relief when the petitioner’s trial counsel failed to arrange for the

       petitioner to undergo a sleep study when the petitioner’s principal defense was

       that he was sleepwalking at the time of the alleged criminal act. 817 F.3d 678,

       695 (9th Cir. 2016). Malloch contends he likewise is entitled to post-conviction

       relief.

[28]   An attorney may perform deficiently by failing to present necessary expert

       witness testimony. See, e.g., Carew v. State, 817 N.E.2d 281, 288 (Ind. Ct. App.

       2004) (holding appellate counsel performed deficiently by failing to challenge

       on appeal the trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony), trans. denied. “Expert

       testimony is appropriate when it addresses issues not within the common

       knowledge and experience of ordinary persons and would aid the jury.” Miller,

       770 N.E.2d at 773. “When [jurors] are faced with evidence that falls outside

       common experience, we allow specialists to supplement the jurors’ insight.”

       Carter v. State, 754 N.E.2d 877, 882 (Ind. 2001), reh’g denied. Yet, the decision

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023    Page 30 of 37
       whether to call an expert witness is still generally a strategic decision that we

       will not second guess. Curtis v. State, 905 N.E.2d 410, 415 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009),

       trans. denied. We “will not declare counsel ineffective for failure to call a

       particular witness absent a clear showing of prejudice.” Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729

       N.E.2d 102, 108 (Ind. 2000), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 73 (2001).

[29]   Attorney Bohdan consulted with two sleep specialists – Dr. Bornemann and Dr.

       Kaplish – before Malloch’s second trial. Attorney Bohdan explained during the

       evidentiary hearing on Malloch’s petition for post-conviction relief that he

       decided not to call Dr. Bornemann as a witness because Dr. Bornemann

       indicated he could not be of assistance to Malloch in light of Malloch’s

       confession during the second recorded interrogation. Attorney Bohdan

       explained those statements were “deemed problematic for [Dr. Bornemann] to,

       to support [Malloch] with an opinion.” (Tr. Vol. II at 157.) Because Attorney

       Bohdan consulted with Dr. Bornemann and Dr. Bornemann indicated he could

       not provide a supportive opinion, we cannot say Attorney Bohdan performed

       deficiently by not calling Dr. Bornemann to testify at Malloch’s trial. See, e.g.,

       Reeves v. State, 174 N.E.3d 1134, 1142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (holding trial

       counsel made reasonable strategic decision not to call an unfavorable witness),

       trans. denied.

[30]   Unlike with Dr. Bornemann, Attorney Bohdan attempted to secure Dr.

       Kaplish’s testimony for Malloch’s second trial, but he failed to properly

       subpoena him. Malloch, 980 N.E.2d at 897. When denying Attorney Bohdan’s

       motion to continue Malloch’s trial, the trial court even noted that it was

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023     Page 31 of 37
       “troubled” by Attorney Bohdan’s failure to properly subpoena Dr. Kaplish.

       (D.A. Tr. Vol. I at 210.) Given that attempting to secure Dr. Kaplish’s

       testimony was the only strategic change between Malloch’s first trial and his

       second trial and that Attorney Bohdan recognized the need to secure Dr.

       Kaplish’s testimony soon after the end of the first trial, Attorney Bohdan should

       have immediately begun the process of attempting to either secure Dr. Kaplish’s

       testimony by subpoena or arranging an evidentiary deposition of Dr. Kaplish.

       Ultimately, neither of those two things happened.

[31]   However, we cannot say Attorney Bohdan’s unsuccessful effort to secure Dr.

       Kaplish’s testimony amounted to constitutionally deficient performance.

       During the hearing on the motion to continue Malloch’s second trial, Attorney

       Bohdan acknowledged he had not started the process of attempting to properly

       subpoena Dr. Kaplish as an out-of-state witness, 4 but he had been in frequent

       contact with Dr. Kaplish regarding Dr. Kaplish’s availability. At the post-

       conviction relief hearing, Attorney Bohdan described Dr. Kaplish as a “not

       terribly cooperative” witness. (Tr. Vol. II at 156.) “Competence does not

       require an attorney to browbeat a reluctant witness into testifying[.]” Knowles v.

       Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 125, 129 S. Ct. 1411, 1421 (2009) (holding petitioner

       failed to establish his trial counsel performed deficiently in advising him to

       withdraw his insanity plea after petitioner’s parents refused to testify).

       4
         See, e.g., Ind. Code § 35-37-5-5 (2004) (statute concerning summoning of witnesses from another state to
       testify in this state).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023                           Page 32 of 37
[32]   Further, putting a reluctant witness on the stand runs the risk that the witness

       will give unfavorable testimony. See, e.g., Guertin v. State, 533 S.E.2d 159, 161

       (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (holding post-conviction relief petitioner’s trial counsel was

       not ineffective for choosing not to call a witness to testify because “as a

       reluctant witness, any beneficial testimony that [she] could have provided might

       have been offset with testimony that could hurt [defendant’s] case”). Dr.

       Kaplish would have been able to offer general information to the jury about

       sexsomnia, and as a credentialed expert, his testimony that the scientific

       community recognized sexsomnia likely would have carried more weight than

       Malloch’s testimony about the condition. However, Dr. Kaplish also likely

       would have testified that a child molester attempting to avoid conviction might

       falsely assert he suffered from sexsomnia, and in diagnosing Malloch with

       sexsomnia, Dr. Kaplish assumed Malloch and his wife were telling the truth.

       In his deposition, Dr. Kaplish testified:

               [State:] But you can make a diagnosis strictly about what your
               patient and their families tell you?

               [Dr. Kaplish:] Yes.

               [State:] If those—if that patient or their families are lying to you,
               would you agree that your diagnosis could be incorrect?

               [Dr. Kaplish:] Could be.

       (D.A. State’s Ex. 1 at 20-21.) Dr. Kaplish further testified:

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023      Page 33 of 37
        [State:] Did you determine that [Malloch] suffered from
        sexsomnia?

        [Dr. Kaplish:] Yes.

        [State:] Okay. What did you rely upon to make that
        determination?

        [Dr. Kaplish:] I relied on the behavior as something that is
        necessarily sexual activity occurring out of sleep.

        [State:] Which behavior?

        [Dr. Kaplish:] The sexual behavior.

        [State:] There’s a lot. Describe which behavior.

        [Dr. Kaplish:] I’d say the complex behavior in which he was
        fondling his stepdaughter.

        [State:] Okay. Well, you know some people molest children
        intentionally and they’re not asleep. So, what told you that he
        was asleep then?

        [Dr. Kaplish:] His - - I don’t know.

                                              *****

        [State:] But you can understand how somebody charged with
        molesting a child at night, in bed together, might claim to be
        suffering from sexsomnia. Correct?

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023     Page 34 of 37
                [Dr. Kaplish:] Yes.

                [State:] And it might be false?

                [Dr. Kaplish:] May be.

                [State:] Okay. So, why is it you think we should believe him
                when he says he was asleep?

                [Dr. Kaplish:] I don’t know if I’m qualified to answer that
                question.

       (Id. at 28-29.)

[33]   When the State confronted Dr. Kaplish with details from Malloch’s confession,

       Dr. Kaplish did not steadfastly hold to his sexsomnia diagnosis. The State

       asked:

                [State:] If you read a statement by your patient where he
                admitted that he woke up, looked at his 11-year-old stepdaughter,
                and thought he could stick his hands down there and she
                wouldn’t notice it because she was asleep. Would that change
                your diagnosis?

                [Dr. Kaplish:] I don’t know.

                [State:] If your patient had admitted that he was sexually
                attracted to his stepdaughter for the two years before that, from
                the time she was 8 or 9 until she was 11, would that change your
                diagnosis?

                [Dr. Kaplish:] I don’t know.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023    Page 35 of 37
                                                  *****

               [State:] If the patient admitted that he pretended to be asleep after
               she pulled his hand out of her vagina, would that change your
               diagnosis?

               [Dr. Kaplish:] I don’t know.

       (Id. at 35-36.) Just as Dr. Bornemann testified at the post-conviction relief

       hearing that it would concern him if someone claiming to have sexsomnia

       admitted to intentionally sexually touching an underage girl, Dr. Kaplish likely

       would have testified that Malloch’s confession to waking up and intentionally

       inserting his finger into C.P.’s vagina cut against a sexsomnia diagnosis. Thus,

       given Dr. Kaplish’s reluctance to testify and the limited value of his testimony,

       we hold Attorney Bohdan did not perform deficiently in not calling Dr. Kaplish

       to testify at Malloch’s trial. See, e.g., White v. State, 25 N.E.3d 107, 134-35 (Ind.

       Ct. App. 2014) (holding trial counsel did not perform deficiently in choosing

       not to call witnesses who likely would have provided unfavorable testimony),

       reh’g denied, trans. denied, cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 595 (2015).

       Conclusion
[34]   Attorney Bohdan did not perform deficiently by not calling an expert witness

       about false confessions at Malloch’s trial because Attorney Bohdan pursued

       other strategies calculated to sow doubt regarding the veracity of Malloch’s

       confession. Nor did Attorney Bohdan perform deficiently when he did not call

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023      Page 36 of 37
       a sleep expert who could not provide an opinion supportive of Malloch or a

       sleep expert who would have been a reluctant and equivocal witness at best.

       We accordingly affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of Malloch’s petition

       for post-conviction relief.

[35]   Affirmed.

       Altice, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2053 | November 16, 2023   Page 37 of 37