Court Opinion

ID: 9650864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:53:36.067287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:09.225521
License: Public Domain

VAN der VOORT, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent to that part of the Opinions of the Majority which holds that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the remarks of the prosecutor in his closing remarks to the jury. I agree that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the competency of the eleven year old victim to testify nor in not objecting to the trial judge’s use of the words “the rape” or “a sordid story”; nor was he ineffective in not interviewing the victim’s mother who was known to be hostile to the defendant, nor was he ineffective in not calling defendant’s aunt as a witness.
In his closing speech to the jury, the District Attorney described the qualities of a rapist. He told the jury that a rapist was a lustful person and stated that “. . . the concept that a rapist slashes or beats or does nothing else to the victim is also a popular misconception that you should get out of your mind. A rapist’s thrill is to have a woman submit by force. He overcomes her will. It is the kinky characters that like to assault too.”
Later on he said:
“. . .he wanted something else at that time. He may have had an argument with Inez McCollum. That suggests that he did not get any gratification that night and he was drunk, he had been drinking, so he wanted some gratification. His idea is this nice little girl laying in bed, small and tender.”
And still later:
“Finally, every defendant is entitled to a jury trial. This defendant exercised his right. Can you imagine an eleven year old girl getting up in Court and telling you about this violation of her body? Is this something that she would welcome? .
*506“When Helen got up there she had to go through this ordeal because she wanted to bring to you the truth, what actually occurred.”
The evidence of the Commonwealth showed the defendant to be a lustful person with a warped mind. There was ample evidence from the. manner in which this rape of an eleven year old girl was committed to warrant the description of a rapist which the District Attorney made. In his statement regarding the eleven year old girl getting up in Court and telling about the violation of her body and that she did this because she wanted to bring the truth to the jury was a proper argument in support of the credibility of the victim. The District Attorney did not say that he personally believed in the truthfulness of the victim-witness but was indicating to the jury why the victim-witness was credible and should be believed.
As the District Attorney was speaking these words, counsel had to determine whether the interests of his client called for an objection or whether his client would be better off if no issue were made concerning them. Defense counsel obviously decided that his client would be better off if he made no issue concerning the remarks. This is not ineffectiveness.
I would affirm the judgment of sentence.