Court Opinion

ID: 9731027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:30:56.33853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:12.401516
License: Public Domain

HABHAB, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the postconviction trial court’s ruling granting Johnson’s application for postcon-viction relief.
That court concluded Johnson’s trial counsel was ineffective when she did not object to testimony by a social worker that, in the social worker’s opinion, the children were truthful and credible. However, when I take into consideration the strategic decisions employed by defense counsel throughout the trial, I am unable to agree that this failure to object, standing alone, is sufficient grounds for the granting of post-conviction relief. In doing so, I want to make it clear at this juncture that if it was not part of a justifiable defense strategy I would quickly reverse, and likewise if a timely objection had been made and overruled, I would reverse on appeal. But the results of this case must rise or fall on the justifiableness of trial strategy.
“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be premised on more than simply questionable or unsuccessful trial tactics.” State v. Risdal, 404 N.W.2d 130, 133 (Iowa 1987) (citing Kyle v. State, 364 N.W.2d 558, 565 (Iowa 1985); State v. Losee, 354 N.W.2d 239, 243 (Iowa 1984)). Additionally, the Iowa Supreme Court has held it is rare to find ineffective assistance of counsel because of failure to preserve error. State v. Halstead, 362 N.W.2d 504, 508-09 (Iowa 1985).
*532The record in the case at bar reflects that trial counsel’s actions were justifiable. Defense counsel had roughly ten years experience, had previously had training in criminal defense, and had handled criminal cases in the past.
As part of its strategy, the defense showed Johnson did not get along well with the older daughter and that over the years the daughter and her family had made frequent complaints to the DHS. During those years, no claims of sexual abuse were made to any of the social workers. Counsel sought to show that, if there was sexual abuse, DHS workers with frequent contact with the family would have recognized the signs or symptoms of abuse, or the children would have reported the abuse to the DHS investigators. In addition, counsel claimed there were factual inconsistencies in the stories given by the children and emphasized the medical testimony was based on a very new, largely untested methodology. Finally, counsel bolstered the defense with local character witnesses, who said Johnson was an upstanding citizen and therefore unlikely to be a child molester.
As to the specific claim regarding testimony about the trustfulness of the victims, trial counsel stated she was unfamiliar with State v. Myers, 382 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 1986), but knew about the guiding principles of that case. She testified she was “aware that [an] expert witness can’t give the ultimate — opinion on the ultimate issue in the trial.” She knew that an objection might lie. Yet she chose, as a matter of strategy, to not object to the testimony by the social worker because she did not think it was the most effective way to attack that witness. Counsel testified as follows:
With Ms. Gauger [the social worker] my position is that she didn’t know what she was talking about, it wouldn't be consistent at the same time to say, yes, but we don’t want you to hear what she has to say. That’s giving her credibility that I didn’t want to give her. So I took the position that who cares what she says, she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. She’s dealt with this family a number of years, in the past she did not determine that there was any abuse taking place, now she says it’s obvious and has been going on all the time. If she didn’t know about it then how does she know about it now. If I had tried to keep the jury from hearing what she had to say I think it would have hurt your basic approach to her, which is she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
This type of approach should not lead to a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.
[T]he term “ineffective assistance of counsel” does not mean that every mistake in judgment or error in trial strategy by an attorney serves to deprive an accused of a constitutional right. Long v. Brewer, 253 N.W.2d 549, 558 (Iowa 1977). Trial tactics may dictate that counsel forego certain avenues of defense in pursuit of the perceived best interests of the accused. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 268, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 1608, 36 L.Ed.2d 235, 244 (1973); State v. Rand, 268 N.W.2d [642] at 649 [(Iowa 1978)].
State v. Veverka, 271 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Iowa 1978) (citations omitted). In the case at bar, we cannot be certain there was a mistake in judgment. Counsel felt that her handling of the social worker on the stand was very effective. She testified as follows:
I think when I was cross examining her and bringing up the point that she had had all this contact with the family over the years and why does she know that this was occurring now whereas in the past she didn’t know, she was the mental health professional that came and visited the family regularly, she was very flustered and practically in tears, by the time we got to redirect I thought we had done enough damage and let her get off of that.
Thus, in many respects it can be argued that counsel’s strategy was successful. But even if it were unsuccessful, that fact alone is insufficient to prove ineffective assistance of counsel.
*533In a similar case, Risdal, defense counsel elicited testimony that indicated child sexual abuse victims do not lie. The Risdal court found no ineffective assistance of counsel and stated the following:
Whether twenty-twenty hindsight tells us trial counsel was wise or unwise in selecting this strategy for cross-examination, common sense and experience teach that the strategy was well within the range of reasonable professional competence. See State v. Wilkens, 346 N.W.2d 16, 19 (Iowa 1984) (not ineffective assistance for counsel to make sound tactical decision to emphasize self-defense rather than diminished capacity, then stay that course in preparing and presenting case to jury); State v. Newman, 326 N.W.2d 788, 795 (Iowa 1982) (“We have refused to assume the role of Monday morning quarterback in condemning counsel’s judgment in choosing between what are frequently equally hazardous options available to him.”)
Risdal, 404 N.W.2d at 133-34. See also Schrier v. State, 347 N.W.2d 657, 661 (Iowa 1984); Karasek v. State, 310 N.W.2d 190, 192 (Iowa 1981).
The real issue is not whether defense counsel’s actions were successful, but whether they were “justifiable.” Pettes v. State, 418 N.W.2d 53, 56-57 (Iowa 1988). In the case at bar, counsel’s actions were justifiable. Her strategy to discredit the testimony of the DHS worker was a valid strategy, and although it did not result in an acquittal, it was still a reasonable defense.
For us to say the strategic defense tactics were not justified serves to second-guess the trial strategy of Johnson’s trial attorney. He should not be granted a new trial merely because the trial strategy failed. He has had his day in court and was represented by a competent attorney who had to take into consideration what the result might be in the event her tactics failed.
There is one other reason why I do not believe postconviction relief should be granted. The jury had the entire picture before it concerning the three young girls who were victims of this crime. At the time of the incident in question, the three girls were fourteen, eleven, and nine years of age.
The defendant was charged with three counts of sexual abuse involving the two younger girls. The case was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict of guilty on two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree.
The main complaint at the postconviction hearing was the testimony of an expert witness. But the jury was instructed that it could accept or reject the testimony of the experts. We of course do not know what, if any, weight the jury gave to the expert witness’s testimony, but we do know the jurors can and do use their own observations, common sense, and experience.
I would reverse the postconviction trial court’s ruling. I would deny Johnson’s application for postconviction relief.