State v. Wofford

Trial counsel was not deficient for failing to call two witnesses for impeachment purposes in the defendant's trial for aggravated child molestation and child molestation, since the defendant failed to show that trial counsel knew or reasonably should have known about the witnesses.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Chad Randall Wofford was charged with committing five sexual offenses against his girlfriend’s two daughters, V. H. and O. H.: i rape of V. H.; ii aggravated child molestation of V. H., by having her place her mouth upon his penis; iii aggravated child molestation of V. H., by placing his mouth upon her vagina; iv child molestation of V. H., by rubbing her vagina with a vibrator; and v aggravated child molestation of O. H., by placing his mouth upon her vagina. A jury found Wofford not guilty of rape and guilty of the remaining four counts. Convicted on those four counts, Wofford filed a motion for new trial. The trial court granted the motion on the ground that Wofford’s trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call certain individuals as defense witnesses. In this direct appeal,1 the state contends that the trial court’s ruling was error for reason that Wofford failed to satisfy the two-prong test of Strickland v. Washington.2 We agree with the state and therefore reverse the order granting Wofford a new trial.3

The TrialAt Wofford’s trial, which was held in 2009, the state’s witnesses testified to the following. During the time period alleged in the indictment, between January 1, 2004 and September 19, 2005, Wofford lived with his girlfriend, V. H. and O. H.’s mother. The girls lived out of state with their father during the 2004-2005 school year and thus attended school there during that school year. There were ongoing child custody issues, and at some point, the girls returned to live with their mother and Wofford in Georgia, where they began the 2005-2006 school year.

State v. Wofford

Trial counsel was not deficient for failing to call two witnesses for impeachment purposes in the defendant's trial for aggravated child molestation and child molestation, since the defendant failed to show that trial counsel knew or reasonably should have known about the witnesses.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report