Harold Hazard v. State of Rhode Island, 64 A.3d 749

Hazard was convicted of one count of first-degree child molestation sexual assault and four counts of second-degree child molestation sexual assault.
Hazard's trial involved disclosure of his confidential psychiatric records to the state without his knowledge or consent.
Postconviction relief denied by the Superior Court; Hazard appealed challenging trial counsel's handling of the records, trial strategy, and closing arguments.
The postconviction-relief court found deficient performance in several respects but concluded no prejudice to the trial outcome under Strickland.
Court considered whether the disclosure harmed Hazard’s credibility relative to Lisa’s testimony and other corroborating evidence.
Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding no prejudice established and defense arguments insufficient to meet Strickland prejudice standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prejudice from disclosure of records	Hazard contends disclosure prejudiced him and undermined trial fairness.	State argues overwhelming evidence supports conviction regardless of error.	No prejudice; evidence overwhelmingly supports guilt.
Racial-animus credibility strategy	Trial strategy to attack Lisa's credibility with racial animus was defective.	Strategy was reasonable tactical decision to test credibility.	Not deprived of effective counsel; no prejudice shown.
Closing argument—claims of lying	Prosecutor's calls to Hazard as a liar were improper; trial counsel should have objected.	References relied on evidence and were not unduly prejudicial; objections unnecessary.	Objections not required to be ineffective; comments not prejudicial given instructions.
Vouching in closing argument	Prosecutor improperly vouched for witnesses; trial counsel should have objected.	Vouching inconsequential given record and jury instructions; not prejudicial.	No reversible error; no prejudice shown.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (two-prong deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Brown v. State, 964 A.2d 516 (R.I. 2009) (strong evidence supports guilt; harmless error analysis in prejudice)
State v. Horton, 871 A.2d 959 (R.I. 2005) (prosecutor closing remarks; demonizing comments disapproved)
State v. Simpson, 658 A.2d 522 (R.I. 1995) (prosecutor closing remarks; admonition about personal opinions)
State v. Adefusika, 989 A.2d 467 (R.I. 2010) (definition of improper bolstering and prejudice review)
State v. Rushlow, 32 A.3d 892 (R.I. 2011) (test for bolstering versus credibility testimony)
Jaiman v. State, 55 A.3d 224 (R.I. 2012) (high deference to counsel performance; Strickland standard applied)
Bustamante v. Wall, 866 A.2d 516 (R.I. 2005) (scope of reasonable assistance and tactical decisions)
State v. Hak, 963 A.2d 921 (R.I. 2009) (instruction on credibility assessments and closing-argument impact)
State v. Conway, 463 A.2d 1319 (R.I. 1983) (closing argument comments not evidence if properly instructed)