O'Neal v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Westbrooks v. State

    309 Ga. App. 398 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 40 times

    Stillwell v. State, 294 Ga. App. 805, 806-07 (2) (a) ( 670 SE2d 452) (2008) (punctuation and footnote omitted).O'Neal v. State, 304 Ga. App. 548, 553 (2) (b) ( 696 SE2d 490) (2010) (citation omitted). In this case, during the State's direct examination of the first forensic interviewer, who met with S. W. shortly after she disclosed the sexual abuse to her step-uncle, the following colloquy occurred:

  2. McNeil v. State

    871 S.E.2d 303 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 5 times
    Concluding that defendant was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to object to improper bolstering testimony because both of the victim's forensic interviews were played for the jury and State presented additional evidence to allow the jury to weigh credibility

    In Haynes v. State , 326 Ga. App. 336, 343-344 (3) (a), 756 S.E.2d 599 (2014), we found no deficient performance where trial counsel decided not to call an expert witness on interviewing techniques shortly after speaking with the expert, noting that "reasonable, competent trial counsel could have made the strategic decision not to call the expert based on what counsel learned in his interview of the expert. In O'Neal v. State , 304 Ga. App. 548, 551-552 (2) (a), 696 S.E.2d 490 (2010), trial counsel decided against calling previously retained experts after concluding the experts might not make good trial witnesses; and we held that these were reasonable, strategic decisions. And in Towry v. State , 304 Ga. App. 139, 147 (2) (f), 695 S.E.2d 683 (2010), trial counsel, who "had handled more than a dozen felony child molestation cases, had training in forensic interviewing, and had himself conducted interviews of children in his former career as a police officer," chose not to call an expert because he concluded from his own review of a recorded interview that nothing in the interviewer's technique "had been improper or had misled [the child victim] so as to warrant the presentation of an expert."

  3. Ward v. State

    353 Ga. App. 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that the testimony that victim's demeanor was consistent with common symptoms of abuse was not impermissible bolstering of victim's credibility

    And an expert’s testimony about the dynamics of child sexual abuse disclosure does not constitute improper bolstering. O’Neal v. State , 304 Ga. App. 548, 553 (2) (b), 696 S.E.2d 490 (2010). Moreover, at the motion for new trial hearing, trial counsel testified that it was his strategy to expose the forensic interviewer’s bias and impartiality, in lieu of objecting to this testimony.

  4. Hopson v. State

    703 S.E.2d 719 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    " (Punctuation omitted.) O'Neal v. State, 304 Ga. App. 548, 552-553 (2) (b) ( 696 SE2d 490) (2010). Evidence of Joshi's opinion would not have been admissible at Hopson's trial.