Fukunaga v. State, 2016 Ark. 164

Fukunaga was convicted of rape after a jury trial and challenges his counsel’s performance for failing to object to deputy testimony about memory and recollection.
A deputy testified about generally difficult for victims to disclose abuse and memory retrieval during interviews, and potential memory repression.
Defense counsel did not object to the deputy’s testimony, but cross-examination addressed the deputy’s lack of expertise and memory-retrieval claims.
The circuit court denied postconviction relief, analyzing whether counsel’s failure to object was deficient and whether it caused prejudice under Strickland.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed; the supreme court held defense strategy justified not objecting and affirmed the circuit court.
Concurrence argued the result could be affirmed on prejudice grounds, but the majority affirmed on trial-strategy grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel's failure to object deficient performance?	Fukunaga	Fukunaga	Counsel's decision was trial strategy; not deficient.
Did the failure to object prejudice the defense?	Fukunaga	Fukunaga	Prejudice need not be addressed because court affirmed on strategy grounds.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Noel v. State, 342 Ark. 35, 26 S.W.3d 123 (Ark. 2000) (trial strategy and reasonable judgment considerations in assessing performance)
State v. Fudge, 361 Ark. 412, 206 S.W.3d 850 (Ark. 2005) (trial strategy considerations and non-deficient performance)
State v. Lacy, 480 S.W.3d 856 (Ark. 2016) (affirmation of appellate standard; findings must be clearly erroneous)
Stewart v. State, 443 S.W.3d 538 (Ark. 2014) (reasonable professional judgment in trial strategy)
Adams v. State, 427 S.W.3d 63 (Ark. 2013) (precision of prejudice showing in postconviction claims)
United States v. Rosales, 19 F.3d 763 (1st Cir. 1994) (limits bolstering evidence by expert testimony on credibility)