Shane Crawford v. State, 377 P.3d 400

Background

Shane Crawford was convicted of two counts of lewd conduct with minors; this appeal concerns Count II (lewd conduct with his step-daughter, Victim II) based on alleged manual-genital contact in a kitchen incident and other touching incidents.
Victim II testified she felt Crawford touch her upper thigh and move "up" toward her "privates," and in the kitchen incident said he touched her "outside of my vaginal area."
During jury deliberations the jury asked whether "manual-genital contact" requires touching the "vaginal area" and whether touching the breast area constitutes manual-genital contact; the trial court declined to define "manual-genital" or "genital," telling jurors to re-read the instructions.
The jury convicted Crawford on Count II (and Count I originally, but Count I was later vacated on other grounds); Crawford appealed and lost as to Count II; he then filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
Crawford argued trial counsel was ineffective for not (1) moving for judgment of acquittal under I.C.R. 29 and (2) requesting the court instruct that manual-genital contact requires touching the vaginal area or define "genital;" he argued appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal.
The district court summarily dismissed the petition; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the summary dismissal, holding Crawford failed to show deficient performance or prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Trial counsel ineffective for failing to move for acquittal (I.C.R. 29)	Crawford: evidence was insufficient to prove manual-genital contact for Count II, so counsel should have moved for acquittal	State: decision not to move was tactical; record contains sufficient evidence to support conviction	Held: No ineffective assistance—decision was tactical and an I.C.R. 29 motion would likely have failed because a reasonable jury could find elements proven
2. Trial counsel ineffective for not requesting instruction that manual-genital contact requires touching the "vaginal area" or defining "genital"	Crawford: jury question showed confusion; clarifying instruction would have favored acquittal and preserved error for appeal	State: jury question did not relate only to Count II; instructions as given were adequate and term "genital" is a matter for jurors' common understanding	Held: No ineffective assistance—trial court properly declined to define statutory language; instructions as a whole were not misleading
3. Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising sufficiency-of-evidence on direct appeal	Crawford: appellate counsel should have argued insufficiency as it would have reversed Count II	State: appellate counsel may omit weaker issues; sufficiency argument would have failed for same reasons as at trial	Held: No ineffective assistance—omission was not objectively unreasonable and Crawford cannot show a reasonable probability of success on appeal
4. Whether summary dismissal of post-conviction petition was appropriate	Crawford: factual record supported issues and required evidentiary hearing	State: facts were undisputed and legal conclusions fail under Strickland standard	Held: Summary dismissal affirmed—no genuine material factual dispute and legal claims fail as a matter of law

Key Cases Cited

Aragon v. State, 114 Idaho 758 (Idaho 1988) (establishes Idaho Strickland test for ineffective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Dunlap v. State, 155 Idaho 345 (Idaho 2013) (standards for summary dismissal of post-conviction claims and review of counsel performance)
State v. Kraft, 96 Idaho 901 (Idaho 1975) (trial tactical decisions generally not challengeable as ineffective assistance)
State v. Eliasen, 158 Idaho 542 (Idaho 2015) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence/I.C.R. 29)
State v. Adamcik, 152 Idaho 445 (Idaho 2012) (reviewing sufficiency of evidence: view evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution)
McKay v. State, 148 Idaho 567 (Idaho 2010) (failure to object to jury instructions may be deficient performance, but reversible error depends on instructions as a whole)