☢ test - Í

recognized that Davis v. Alaska, [415 U.S. 308 (94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347) (1974)] guarantees a defendant in a criminal trial “both the general right to cross-examine witnesses against him and the more specific right to cross-examine a key state's witness concerning pending criminal charges against the witness.” [Cit.]’ Mangum v. State, 274 Ga. 573, 576(2) (555 S.E.2d 451) (2001).” Lewis v. State, 302 Ga.App. 506, 691 S.E.2d 336 (February 25, 2010). At defendant’s trial for aggravated assault, no ineffective assistance shown by counsel’s failure to use prior convictions to impeach State’s witness. “The decision whether to impeach a witness through introduction of certified copies of prior convictions is a matter of trial strategy. See Nix [ v. State, 280 Ga. 141, 143(3)(b) (625 S.E.2d 746) (2006)] (trial counsel's decision not to introduce the conviction into evidence was a reasonable trial strategy); Lakes v. State, 266 Ga. 389, 389-390(2) (467 S.E.2d 566) (1996) (decision not to impeach witness on prior convictions was part of a legitimate trial strategy).” Accord, McMichael v. State , 305 Ga.App. 876, 700 S.E.2d 879 (September 9, 2010); Chance v. State , 291 Ga. 241, 728 S.E.2d 635 (June 18, 2012); Curtis v. State , 330 Ga.App. 839, 769 S.E.2d 580 (March 2, 2015). Pickard v. State, 302 Ga.App. 483, 691 S.E.2d 569 (February 24, 2010). At defendant’s trial for child molestation and related offenses, no ineffective assistance where trial counsel didn’t ask victims’ mother about victims’ reputation for truthfulness. At motion for new hearing, mother testified that the girls were not truthful. “Trial counsel said he decided to impeach the victims' credibility by pointing out inconsistencies in their allegations and their conduct. Although present counsel may have conducted the trial differently, this does not mean that Pickard did not receive a vigorous and complete defense. See Sutton v. State, 261 Ga.App. 860, 864(2)(a) (583 S.E.2d 897) (2003). … The suggestion that the presentation of witnesses who would testify that two of the victims had bad reputations for truthfulness would have resulted in Pickard's acquittal is speculation and does not demonstrate ineffective assistance. See id.” McClain v. State, 301 Ga.App. 844, 689 S.E.2d 126 (January 5, 2010). No ineffective assistance for failure to use misdemeanor theft by taking charge as impeachment, absent evidence of fraud or deceit as part of the offense. “‘[A] prior conviction for misdemeanor theft is not a crime involving dishonesty within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-84.1(a)(3), where the party seeking to use a theft conviction has not shown that the conviction involved fraud or deceit.’ Clements v. State, 299 Ga.App. 561, 563(1), 683 S.E.2d 127 (2009); see Jacobs v. State, 299 Ga.App. 368, 375(2)(e), 683 S.E.2d 64 (2009) (theft by taking is not a crime which necessarily involves dishonesty or making a false statement).” Taylor v. State, 301 Ga.App. 104, 686 S.E.2d 870 (November 17, 2009). No ineffective assistance from failure to impeach State’s witnesses with prior convictions where information about their criminal backgrounds came out during trial, anyway. “[G]iven the jury's awareness of [witness] Wood's recent criminal propensities, no reasonable probability exists that the introduction of an additional conviction that was ten years old would have altered the outcome of the proceeding. See Totten v. State, 276 Ga. 199, 201-202(4) (577 S.E.2d 272) (2003) (trial counsel's failure to impeach a witness with certified copies of a prior conviction did not amount to ineffective assistance where the witness testified he was in federal prison and wore jail attire during his court appearance). Accord Buchanan v. State, 273 Ga.App. 174, 181-182(5) (614 S.E.2d 786) (2005) (counsel's failure to impeach witness with felony convictions not prejudicial because witness testified to participation in crimes on trial); Ross v. State, 231 Ga.App. 793, 798(6) (499 S.E.2d 642) (1998) (same).” Accord, Askew v. State , 310 Ga.App. 746, 713 S.E.2d 925 (July 12, 2011); Aburto v. State , 327 Ga.App. 424, 759 S.E.2d 276 (May 30, 2014) (no prejudice in failure to impeach witness with shoplifting conviction where jury was made aware that the witness “had pled guilty to a charge of criminal damage to property in the second degree.”). Burce v. State, 299 Ga.App. 849, 683 S.E.2d 901 (August 25, 2009). At defendant’s trial for statutory rape, no ineffective assistance for failing to impeach victim with her criminal history. “Counsel testified at the motion for new trial hearing that he had known S.H. might have had a criminal background, that he had considered whether to try to impeach her, but that he did not further investigate her criminal history because he determined that he wanted her to maintain some credibility. A paternity test had indicated a 99.999 percent probability that Burce was the father of S.H.'s child, and counsel wanted to use a statement made by S.H. to explain how this result could occur without Burce having sexual intercourse with the girl. Prior to trial, S.H. had told Burce's counsel that she was impregnated when her former stepfather had intercourse with her while wearing a recently used condom containing Burce's semen. At trial, Burce's counsel presented evidence consistent with this defense strategy. S.H. admitted on cross-examination that she had told Burce's counsel she was impregnated in this manner. Evidence was presented that it was possible, even if improbable, that sperm inside a condom could remain viable for up to two hours. And evidence was presented of enmity between S.H.'s former stepfather and Burce, who was involved in a relationship with S.H.'s mother.” Decision not to impeach victim with her convictions was thus strategic.