The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching involving a child complainant, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel and seeking to adduce fresh evidence of an alleged recantation.
The court held that counsel's decision not to call the complainant's mother was a defensible strategic choice and that the failure to obtain a rebuttal expert caused no prejudice because the proposed opinion evidence did not undermine the core issue of identity of the perpetrator.
Applying the Palmer framework, the court found the proposed fresh evidence was not reasonably capable of belief due to pervasive contradictions and unreliability.
The conviction appeal was dismissed, and although leave to appeal sentence was granted, the five-year penitentiary sentence was upheld as fit.
