☢ test - Í

Allen v. State, 286 Ga.App. 82, 648 S.E.2d 677 (June 22, 2007). No prejudice shown in failing to obtain expert testimony on eyewitness identification where identification was also based on DNA evidence (defendant’s semen on shirt). “Given this evidence, the trial court would have been authorized to exclude expert testimony regarding identification. See Allen v. State, 268 Ga.App. 519, 526-527(2) (602 S.E.2d 250) (2004) (where there is substantial corroboration of identification, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony on the issue of identification).” Accord, Peeler v. State , 286 Ga.App. 400, 649 S.E.2d 775 (July 6, 2007). Daly v. State, 285 Ga.App. 808, 648 S.E.2d 90 (May 30, 2007). Dicta: retained counsel “could have petitioned the court for funds to hire an expert even though she was retained. See Hall v. State, 272 Ga.App. 204, 205-206(1) (612 S.E.2d 44) (2005).” Note, this proposition is mentioned anecdotally in Hall . No ineffective assistance found here, absent showing that outcome of trial would have been affected by hiring experts. Perez v. State, 281 Ga. 175, 637 S.E.2d 30 (October 30, 2006). No ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel “relied on the testimony of … a licensed professional counselor to carry the day with regard to defendant’s insanity defense. In this regard, defendant posits that he would have been able to convince the jury that he was insane if defense counsel had sought the expertise of a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist. … [A]n insanity defense does not require the expert testimony of a psychologist or psychiatrist. See Motes v. State, 256 Ga. 831, 832 (353 S.E.2d 348) (1987) (insanity defense does not require expert testimony for presentation to a jury). Second, it was shown that, prior to this case, Dr. Manley had conducted forensic evaluations, sometimes at the request of a court, more than 25 times; and she had been qualified as an expert in forensic counseling between 8 and 10 times. Thus, it cannot be said that defense counsel was deficient simply because he presented an insanity defense via a licensed professional counselor instead of a psychologist or psychiatrist.” Pringle v. State, 281 Ga.App. 230, 635 S.E.2d 843 (August 22, 2006). Trial court properly found no ineffective assistance based on failure to seek funds for “an expert on the reliability of cross-racial eyewitness identification .” At motion hearing, defendant failed to make any proffer of the evidence. “To establish the prejudicial effect of trial counsel’s failure to present certain evidence, [a defendant] ‘is required to make an affirmative showing that specifically demonstrates how counsel’s failure would have affected the outcome of the case.’ [Cit.] ‘Absent a proffer of what the testimony of his expert would have been at trial, [Pringle] cannot show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had his counsel taken the suggested course.’ [Cit.]” Accord, Wafford v. State , 283 Ga.App. 154, 640 S.E.2d 727 (January 3, 2007); Mora v. State , 295 Ga.App. 641, 673 S.E.2d 23 (January 23, 2009) (No ineffective assistance for failure to retain expert to challenge police techniques for interviewing child molestation victim.); Smith v. State , 303 Ga.App. 831, 695 S.E.2d 86 (April 27, 2010); Ellis v. State , 316 Ga.App. 352, 729 S.E.2d 492 (June 25, 2012); Moore v. State , 319 Ga.App. 766, 738 S.E.2d 348 (February 14, 2013); White v. State , 293 Ga. 635, 748 S.E.2d 888 (September 23, 2013) (same as Pringle ); Johnson v. State , 326 Ga.App. 220, 756 S.E.2d 303 (March 13, 2014); Barstad v. State , 329 Ga.App. 214, 764 S.E.2d 453 (October 3, 2014). Tyler v. State, 279 Ga.App. 809, 632 S.E.2d 716 (June 15, 2006). Child molestation convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance for failure to seek funds to hire an expert on interviews of alleged child molesting victims, as experienced trial counsel was able to thoroughly raise the issues regarding the interviewer’s techniques. “In light of the attack upon Detective Mestre’s interviewing techniques made by trial counsel in his cross-examination and closing argument, Tyler ‘has not demonstrated that there would have been a different outcome had counsel requested funds and called’ an expert witness similarly to attack those techniques. Cupe v. State, 253 Ga.App. 851, 856(3)(e) (560 S.E.2d 700) (2002) (finding no prejudice when defense counsel failed to request funds and hire clinical psychologist with expertise in child- interviewing techniques). See also Canada v. State, 275 Ga. 131, 133(2) (562 S.E.2d 508) (2002) (failure to call defense medical expert did not constitute ineffective assistance when trial counsel thoroughly cross-examined state’s witnesses); Moreland v. State, 263 Ga.App. 585, 588(4) (588 S.E.2d 785) (2003) (failure to call witness did not constitute ineffective assistance when same basic testimony was obtained through cross-examine of state’s witnesses). This is particularly true where, as here, the state did not call an expert psychologist at trial that the defense needed to refute. Cf. Coalson v. State, 251 Ga.App. 761, 767(3) (555 S.E.2d 128) (2001) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to provide funds for expert witness in child molestation case in part because ‘the State did not utilize an expert in the trial of this case, so there was no expert opinion to be refuted’).” Accord, Bharadia v. State , 282 Ga.App. 556, 639 S.E.2d 545 (November 27, 2006) ( exercise of professional judgment in electing not to obtain expert witness not shown to be ineffective assistance ); Breland v. State , 287 Ga.App. 83, 651 S.E.2d 439 (August 1, 2007) (same as Bharadia ); Vaughn v. State , 307 Ga.App. 754, 706 S.E.2d 137 (February 9, 2011) (“defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined the experts on the techniques used to interview the children” and discussed victim’s inconsistencies with her.).