☢ test - Í

completeness. “Trial counsel could reasonably have decided not to try to offer more of Payne's statement through the GBI agent, who might have commented unfavorably on Payne's tone and related matters. In addition, safely offering the bits of the agent's notes to which Payne now points would have required obtaining favorable rulings from the trial court to redact other, negative information in the notes like references to his criminal history.” “Decisions about what questions to ask on cross-examination are quintessential trial strategy, see Simpson v. State, 277 Ga. 356, 359, 589 S.E.2d 90 (2003).” Accord, King v. State , 320 Ga.App. 90, 739 S.E.2d 654 (February 14, 2013) (decision not to attack credibility of child abuse victim’s mother); Patterson v. State , 328 Ga.App. 111, 761 S.E.2d 524 (July 10, 2014) (decision not to cross co-defendant “on his denial that he received any benefit for [testifying for the State]”). Christian v. State, 297 Ga.App. 596, 677 S.E.2d 767 (April 22, 2009). No ineffective assistance where counsel chose not to cross-examine witness who “did not ‘damage [his] theory of the case.’” Smith v. State, 296 Ga.App. 427, 674 S.E.2d 647 (March 4, 2009). No ineffective assistance where counsel at defendant’s child molestation trial asked state’s psychologist/witness about the percentage of abuse allegations which are false. “At the motion for new trial hearing, Smith's trial counsel testified that he had anticipated a much different response when he asked the psychologist about the percentage of false allegations in child abuse cases. He had obtained articles showing that 60 percent of child abuse accusations are unsupported, and specifically asked the psychologist whether she was familiar with those articles. He was not ineffective merely because she gave an unanticipated response to his initial question and then qualified her response that she was aware of studies showing higher percentages of false allegations in child abuse cases. Although it appears that trial counsel's cross-examination tactics may have backfired, a reasonable tactic that backfires does not necessarily constitute deficient performance. Adams v. State, 290 Ga.App. 299, 301 (659 S.E.2d 711) (2008).” Battise v. State, 295 Ga.App. 833, 673 S.E.2d 262 (January 15, 2009). No ineffective assistance for failing to cross- examine detective on studies showing no link between the accuracy of an eyewitness’s identification with the witness’s confidence level in his identification. Detective here only showed the victim a single photograph of defendant, and didn’t prepare a photographic lineup because the victim “had known Battise for years” and “had no doubt that Battise was the person who ran out of his girlfriend’s apartment on the night of the incident.” “Trial counsel's tactical decision about how to most effectively cross-examine the State's witnesses at trial did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. Simpson v. State, 277 Ga. 356, 359(4)(b) (589 S.E.2d 90) (2003).” Gibbs v. State, 287 Ga.App. 694, 652 S.E.2d 591 (October 1, 2007). Defendant received ineffective assistance from trial counsel at his trial for child molestation and related charges. At hearing on motion for new trial, three witnesses testified that they had told trial counsel about prior false allegations of molestation made by the alleged victim against them, and that the victim later recanted the allegations. Trial counsel testified that he didn’t present the testimony because he (erroneously) believed the testimony was excluded by the rape shield law. “[T]his Court has found ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel failed to cross-examine a witness regarding her ‘many prior allegations of child molestation.’ Goldstein v. State, 283 Ga.App. 1, 4(3)(a) (640 S.E.2d 599) (2006).” Allen v. State, 286 Ga.App. 469, 649 S.E.2d 583 (July 10, 2007). 1. “[A]lthough counsel elicited prejudicial hearsay, her questions were based on a strategic decision to attempt to show that the police had very little to link her client with any drug sales.” Counsel was thus not ineffective. 2. “Allen also contends his counsel elicited bad character evidence that was prejudicial. On cross-examination of Fitzgerald, Allen’s counsel asked when Fitzgerald first went to Allen’s house. In response, the witness testified, ‘I went to there to buy drugs. I was on drugs then.... I met him. He was the dope man, and I bought drugs from him....’ Allen’s counsel did not object to the response, ask for a curative instruction, or seek a mistrial. Thus, Allen’s counsel elicited testimony damaging to her client and did not do anything about it. But there is no error when the contested evidence is cumulative of other relevant evidence. Quarles v. State, [285 Ga.App. 758, 647 S.E.2d 415 (June 8, 2007)].” Garrett v. State, 285 Ga.App. 282, 645 S.E.2d 718 (May 8, 2007). “‘[T]he degree to which an attorney chooses to cross- examine witnesses and the manner in which to attack their credibility fall within the ambit of trial tactics.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Lawrence v. State, 274 Ga. 794, 795(3) (560 S.E.2d 17) (2002).” Accord, Medlin v. State , 285 Ga.App. 709, 647 S.E.2d 392 (June 6, 2007) (counsel’s cross-examination of victim shaped by his perception that “the jury seemed to respond” to her testimony and that “to be too severe on [the victim] on cross examination would tend to be more harmful [to Medlin’s case] than helpful.”); Barnes v. State , 299 Ga.App. 253, 682 S.E.2d 359 (July 17, 2009); Harris v. State , 291 Ga. 175, 728 S.E.2d 178 (May 7, 2012).