≡ Menu

Even if objectionable, testimony doesn’t merit new TPR trial

S.K. v. S.S., 2020AP277, District 3, 2/26/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not made available)

S.S. (or “Susan,” to use the court’s pseudonym) isn’t entitled to a new TPR grounds trial based on her trial attorney’s failure to object to the admission of testimony she argues was irrelevant “other-acts” evidence. Even if trial counsel was deficient for failing to object (and the court doesn’t necessarily agree that’s the case (¶16 n.4), there was overwhelming evidence that Susan’s conduct constituted both abandonment and failure to assume parental responsibility. Thus, she has not proven prejudice, so her ineffective assistance of counsel claims fails. (¶¶16-25).

{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment