Court Opinion

ID: 9505370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:04:09.316261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:24.759145
License: Public Domain

BOEHM, Justice.
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. For the reasons given by the Court of Appeals, I would conclude there was a reasonable probability that the omitted evidence would have affected the jury's finding of penetration. As a result, trial counsel's performance was inadequate and prejudicial, setting up a claim of ineffective assistance. Appellate counsel precluded review of this issue on direct appeal by raising the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel without supplementing the record through a Davis proceeding or otherwise to establish what the omitted evidence was. Because I agree with the Court of Appeals that the omitted evidence was prejudicial in Strickland terms, failure to preserve this issue was ineffective appellate assistance and prejudicial because the Court of Appeals, if presented with it, would have found a reasonable probability of prejudice from trial counsel's omission, and ordered a new trial bases on ineffective assistance of trial counsel.