Court Opinion

ID: 9585562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:01:38.067062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:32.991299
License: Public Domain

Moore, Justice
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. The majority finds that Jolly received ineffective assistance of counsel. The record is clear that Jolly’s attorney did not object to Cobb’s reply testimony because the trial judge had previously ruled, after objection, that identical testimony by the social worker was admissible. In my opinion such reasonable failure to object is not ineffec*22tiveness. Whitehead v. State, 308 S.C. 119, 417 S.E. (2d) 529 (1992) (counsel not ineffective where trial strategy reasonable).
Further, in my view, the victim’s prior consistent statements would have been admissible to rebut the evidence of her prior inconsistent statements under Burns v. Clayton, 237 S.C. 316, 117 S.E. (2d) 300 (1960). I read Burns to require only that the prior consistent statement be made before the witness’s relation to the pending cause of action rather than the underlying factual cause as the majority holds. I therefore conclude Jolly would not have prevailed on appeal even if counsel had objected to Cobb’s testimony.
I would affirm the PCR judge’s denial of relief.