Randy Lapp’s ineffective assistance claims are numerous and diverse, and the court of appeals quickly disposes of them. To wit:
You can’t show ineffective assistance for failing to substitute a judge without showing prejudice. (¶¶8-9). McMorris evidence must show an alleged victim’s violence, not harsh statements or involvement with other possibly violent people. (¶¶10-13). The presence of armed security guards around defendant was not prejudicial. (¶¶14-15). Lapp’s success in excluding evidence of a bench warrant did not preclude the state from arguing that he fled the scene because of his guilty mind (rather than because of the warrant). (¶¶16-17). The victim’s earlier report that Lapp had threatened her with a black knife did not provide grounds to object to evidence that he had threatened her with a camouflage knife. (¶¶18-21). Counsel was not ineffective for not creating a fancy diagram of the apartment where the crime occurred. (¶22). The victim’s neighbor’s testimony that she “looked like a dog that had been beaten with a stick for hours” was not prejudicial in light of the evidence presented about her injuries. (¶23). Defense counsel’s slip of the tongue during closing–he asked the jury to “return a verdict of guilty” before immediately correcting himself–did not prejudice Lapp. (¶24). The prosecutor’s remark in closing that the court had instructed them that they could find the victim credible and thus find Lapp guilty did not remove the credibility question from the jury. (¶¶25-27).