Ashmid v. State, 316 Ga. App. 550

Ashmid was convicted by a jury of one count of child molestation after staying with a relative’s family in September 2005.
J. S., then three years old, alleged that Ashmid hurt her genitals; she and her mother, a cousin, and later the father observed red, swollen genitalia.
J. S. demonstrated touching and identified body parts during private questioning and in an interview with law enforcement.
Ashmid was extradited from New York after an interview and arrest warrant; the trial proceeded with presentation of expert and lay testimony.
On appeal, Ashmid challenged (i) refreshing recollection with an anatomical diagram, (ii) a juror struck for cause, and (iii) ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the diagram used to refresh recollection was improper	Ashmid contends it refreshed recollection improperly.	State argues it was demonstrative, not a memory refresh.	Diagram admitted as demonstrative evidence, not improper refresh.
Whether the for-cause dismissal of a juror was proper	Ashmid argues stripping for cause was erroneous because juror claimed bias only with forensic evidence.	State asserts juror’s responses showed clear impartiality issues warranting dismissal.	Court did not abuse discretion in striking the juror.
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain criminal histories	Ashmid claims counsel failed to obtain witnesses’ criminal histories and continuance opportunity.	State notes no demonstrated prejudice; records showed no witness history or continuance remedy.	No ineffective assistance; lack of demonstrated prejudice.
Whether other asserted failures by counsel were ineffective	Ashmid asserts failures to object to hearsay, improper refreshing, and bench-conference procedures harmed trial.	State argues strategy decisions and lack of coaching negate prejudice.	No ineffective assistance; strategy decisions reasonable; no prejudice shown.

Pittman v. State, 178 Ga. App. 693 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986) (diagram admissibility; evidence as relevant to molestation)
Welbon v. State, 278 Ga. 312 (Ga. 2004) (trial strategy; objections not always ineffective assistance)
DeLong v. State, 310 Ga. App. 518 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for appellate review of credibility and evidence)
Ross v. State, 231 Ga. App. 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (impartiality and trial strategy; standard of review for voir dire)
Johnson v. State, 266 Ga. 380 (Ga. 1996) (predecessor standards for effectiveness review)