Douglas Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 92A04-1703-PC-436

Douglas Johnson was convicted (after jury trial) of Class A child molesting (J.J.) and Class C sexual misconduct with a minor (H.C.); sentenced to concurrent terms, and direct appeal affirmed.
Johnson filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; post-conviction court denied relief and Johnson appealed.
At trial the State introduced recorded pretrial interviews of the two child victims; both children and their interviewers also testified live.
Trial counsel chose not to object to admission of the videotaped interviews and used them in closing to impeach and highlight alleged leading questions, inconsistencies, and coaching.
Johnson also complained counsel failed to object to alleged vouching and so-called "drumbeat" repetition evidence from investigators and parents.
The post-conviction court found counsel’s choices were strategic, reasonable under prevailing law, and that Johnson was not prejudiced given other evidence (including a polygraph showing deception and two independent victim statements).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to admission of victims’ recorded pretrial interviews	Johnson: counsel should have objected as the videos were inadmissible hearsay and not properly admitted under I.C. §35-37-4-6	State: counsel made a reasonable strategy choice to admit videos to impeach victims and highlight lead/prodding and inconsistencies	Court: Strategy was reasonable and not a post-hoc rationalization; no ineffective assistance on this ground
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to alleged vouching and drumbeat testimony	Johnson: counsel should have objected to testimony that vouched for victims and repeated their statements	State: counsel strategically reserved objections; much testimony was admissible or would have been overruled; defense opened the door to some testimony	Court: Testimony largely admissible under law at time; objections would likely fail and no prejudice shown
Whether cumulative errors deprived Johnson of effective assistance	Johnson: cumulative effect of the alleged failures created reasonable probability of different outcome	State: no individual errors found; counsel defended vigorously and secured an acquittal on one serious charge	Court: No errors established; cumulative- error claim fails

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (setting the two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
McCary v. State, 761 N.E.2d 389 (Ind. 2002) (deference to strategic/tactical decisions by counsel)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (post-hoc rationalization doctrine for strategy explanations)
Hinesley v. State, 999 N.E.2d 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (permitting admission of pretrial statements when used strategically to show unreliability)
Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (contemporary law on permissible forms of vouching in child-molestation cases)
Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (defense opening the door permits testimony rebutting claims of coaching)