Osier v. State
2014 ND 41
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Osier was charged in 1994 with multiple counts of gross sexual imposition involving his daughter.
- First jury trial ended in a mistrial with credibility and rape shield issues unresolved.
- Second trial with out-of-state counsel again admitted S.O.'s sexual activity with her boyfriend; conviction reversed on appeal for niece molestation evidence.
- Third trial again relied on S.O.'s testimony and other corroboration; defense sought to introduce additional acts between S.O. and her boyfriend but failed to comply with rape shield rules.
- Osier filed post-conviction relief in 2012 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; district court denied relief citing lack of prejudice and res judicata.
- Supreme Court affirmed, holding Osier failed to show prejudice from trial counsel’s alleged deficient performance and that evidence exclusion did not lead to a likely different outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance prejudice standard applied | Osier argues prejudice shown under Stricklands prong. | State contends record shows no reasonable probability of different result. | Osier failed to prove prejudice; record supports convictions. |
| Effect of excluding rape shield evidence on outcome | Excluding evidence could have altered trial outcome. | Exclusion was proper; evidence cumulative or not sufficiently probative. | No reasonable probability of different result; exclusion harmless. |
| Whether res judicata barred relief | Osier asserts new ineffective-assistance claim uncoupled from prior outcomes. | Court previously addressed similar issues; claim barred. | Res judicata applicable; claim not demonstrated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Broadwell v. State, 841 N.W.2d 750 (N.D. 2014) (review of prejudice within remaining trial evidence; one-prong suffices in some cases)
- Dahl v. State, 826 N.W.2d 922 (N.D. 2013) ( Strickland prejudice standard applied; mixed questions of law and fact)
- Kinsella v. State, 840 N.W.2d 625 (N.D. 2013) (prejudice proof require specifics and probability of different result)
- Coppage v. State, 826 N.W.2d 320 (N.D. 2013) (requires showing probability of different outcome absent error)
- State v. Osier, 590 N.W.2d 205 (N.D. 1999) (rape shield evidence assessment; prior appellate holding)