☢ test - Í

Johnson v. State, 297 Ga.App. 823, 678 S.E.2d 531 (May 13, 2009). At defendant’s drug trial, no ineffective assistance despite counsel’s failure to obtain all of witness’s criminal convictions for impeachment purposes. “Defense counsel impeached the witness with numerous offenses. Notably absent from her criminal history were any drug offenses. Under these circumstances, there appears no reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different if counsel had admitted certified copies of other convictions of the witness.” Battise v. State, 295 Ga.App. 833, 673 S.E.2d 262 (January 15, 2009). “‘That [trial counsel] may not have impeached [victim] in every respect does not show that counsel's performance fell outside the broad range of reasonable professional conduct.’ (Citations omitted.) Sims v. State, 280 Ga. 606, 607-608(3) (631 S.E.2d 656) (2006).” Issue here: discrepancies in victim’s description of defendant’s clothing, brought out in other ways through other witnesses. Eller v. State, 294 Ga.App. 77, 668 S.E.2d 755 (October 16, 2008). Trial counsel’s decision not to impeach victim with evidence of her prior criminal history was strategic, as “he thought it would look bad to cross-examine an alleged sexual abuse victim with her past behavior.” “He also noted that her drug usage came out during the course of trial, including that she had been ‘partying’ on crack cocaine.” Accord, Dennis v. State , 294 Ga.App. 171, 669 S.E.2d 187 (October 21, 2008) (no ineffective assistance where counsel impeached witness by cross-examining her about criminal conviction rather than tendering a copy of the conviction itself). Rivers v. State, 283 Ga. 108, 657 S.E.2d 210 (February 11, 2008). Defense counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance – failing to impeach State’s witness with his prior criminal record – was not shown to be prejudicial, “because [defendant] has failed to demonstrate that but for this alleged error, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted him on at least one charge. In support of his claim of prejudice, Rivers offers nothing more that his own speculation that had his trial counsel been successful in introducing Calhoun’s criminal history and probationary status for impeachment purposes, there is a reasonable probability the jury would have acquitted him on at least one charge. But mere ‘[s]peculation is insufficient to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland ’ Cormier v. State, 277 Ga. 607, 608 (592 S.E.2d 841) (2004). See Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 693 (‘Conflict of interest claims aside, actual ineffectiveness claims alleging a deficiency in attorney performance are subject to a general requirement that the defendant affirmatively prove prejudice.... Attorney errors come in an infinite variety and are as likely to be utterly harmless in a particular case as they are to be prejudicial.... Even if a defendant shows that particular errors of counsel were unreasonable, therefore, the defendant must show that they actually had an adverse effect on the defense.’) (emphasis added).” Sims v. State, 280 Ga. 606, 631 S.E.2d 656 (June 12, 2006). No ineffective assistance for failing to impeach an eyewitness with prior inconsistent statements. “At the motion for new trial, counsel testified that the witness was very argumentative and that he questioned her the best he could. Moreover, counsel did impeach the witness with her prior statement in several respects. That he may not have impeached her in every respect does not show that counsel’s performance fell outside the broad range of reasonable professional conduct.” Ward v. State, 274 Ga.App. 511, 618 S.E.2d 154 (July 19, 2005). “[N]o clear error in the trial court’s ruling that counsel rendered effective assistance,” even though he didn’t cross-examine child molesting victim about another, allegedly false, allegation of molestation victim had made. Issue arose after victim had already been excused as a witness, so counsel didn’t recall her, but she was in fact available. “Through his skillful examination of the child’s mother and the police officer, trial counsel showed the jury that the victim’s allegation against Holmes had not resulted in his conviction. Counsel also revealed to the jury the substance of the child’s allegation against Holmes.” 110. WITNESSES, FAILURE TO INTERVIEW/INVESTIGATE See also subheading WITNESSES, FAILURE TO IMPEACH, above Dority v. State, 335 Ga.App. 83, 780 S.E.2d 129 (November 20, 2015). Aggravated child molestation and related convictions affirmed. Under 2013 Evidence Code, 1. no ineffective assistance in failing to call witnesses whose “offered testimony was not ‘particularly helpful to the defendant.’” One witness could have testified to credibility issues of State’s witnesses, but had credibility issues of her own; defendant’s mother could have cast doubt on victim’s outcry, but was also an outcry witness and counsel “did not want another outcry witness on the stand to buttress the child’s story”; third witness, defendant’s daughter, was State’s similar transaction witness, who heard victim’s mother retract her claims against Dority, but didn’t tell counsel and counsel “had little reason to suspect that L.D. would have such knowledge and therefore little reason to pursue such a line of questioning.” L.D. also “did not really want to be involved in the trial.” 2. Counsel was deficient for failing to “at least attempt to interview[ ] the mother of the victim,