Ineffective assistance of counsel; Adequate preparation; Failure to impeach the victim with prior inconsistent statements; Prejudice; Abandoned claim as to the presentence investigation report (PSIR)

Holding that any ineffective assistance by trial counsel in cross-examining the victim did not warrant relief and that defendant abandoned his PSIR arguments, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment. He was convicted of CSC I and conspiracy to commit CSC I. Two attorneys (R and N) acted as co-counsel in his trial. He first argued that they were ineffective because they “were not prepared to cross-examine the victim. However, [N] assured the trial court that he was prepared to cross-examine the victim after [it] gave him 20 minutes to review the testimony that he missed. Absent evidence that” he was unprepared, the court could not “find that his performance was defective on this basis.” Defendant also asserted that they were ineffective for failing “to impeach the victim’s trial testimony by cross-examining [him] about his prior inconsistent statements.” The court noted that it has “previously recognized numerous reasons why a competent attorney might, as a valid trial strategy, refrain from cross-examining a complaining witness in a child sexual abuse case.” But here, absent contrary evidence, it assumed “that trial counsel performed deficiently through [N’s] cross-examination of the victim. Nonetheless,” it found “no reasonable probability that the outcome of this case would have been different, but for trial counsel’s deficient performance on cross-examination. Having reviewed the inconsistences identified by defendant on appeal,” the court agreed “with the prosecution that they generally ‘relate to peripheral details.’ Moreover, many of the purported inconsistences are not actually inconsistent.” In addition, “the victim was not the only witness to provide incriminating evidence against defendant. The officer who wrote the police reports and the victim’s friends testified about their respective experiences in talking to [him] about the abuse.” The jury also heard a recording of defendant’s police interrogation.