Roe v. State, 891 N.W.2d 745

Roe was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition based largely on three forensic interview statements by children; a detective testified to those statements at the preliminary hearing.
One child later partially recanted at trial, saying Roe touched her inner thigh rather than her vaginal area.
Roe was convicted by a jury on both counts.
Roe sought post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by his preliminary-hearing attorney (for not subpoenaing the recanting child) and by his trial attorney (for stipulating to admissibility of recorded forensic interviews).
The district court denied relief, finding Roe failed to show prejudice from either attorney’s performance; the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed.

Issue	Roe's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Roe was prejudiced by preliminary-hearing counsel's failure to subpoena the recanting child	Subpoenaing the child would have produced testimony consistent with her trial recantation and could have defeated probable cause for at least one charge	Preliminary hearings only require probable cause; the court must accept prior interview statements unless implausible, and a recantation conflicted with earlier statements so would not likely defeat probable cause	No prejudice — even if the child had testified consistent with her trial recantation, conflicts with earlier statements would leave probable cause intact
Whether Roe was prejudiced by trial counsel’s stipulation to admissibility of recorded forensic interviews	The stipulation allowed otherwise inadmissible hearsay into evidence and prejudiced the defense	The statements would have been admissible anyway because the children testified at trial and admissibility under Rule 803(24) and controlling precedent would permit admission; stipulation was a reasonable trial strategy	No prejudice — reasonable strategy and likely admissibility without stipulation; no reasonable probability of a different outcome

Peterka v. State, 864 N.W.2d 745 (N.D. 2015) (ineffective-assistance standard and prejudice requirement)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Blunt, 751 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 2008) (preliminary hearing is a probable-cause screening; court must accept testimony unless implausible)
State v. Blue, 717 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 2006) (forensic interview statement admissible under Rule 803(24) when child testifies)
Heckelsmiller v. State, 687 N.W.2d 454 (N.D. 2004) (district court may dispose of ineffective-assistance claim by addressing prejudice first)
DeCoteau v. State, 608 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 2000) (court will not second-guess reasonable trial strategy with hindsight)