Yara CHUM v. STATE of Rhode Island, 160 A.3d 295

Defendant Yara Chum was convicted by a jury of two counts of felony assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence arising from a 2009 shooting incident following a disrupted drug deal.
At trial the prosecutor, during opening, referenced a statement attributed to Chum that would be introduced; the prosecution later did not introduce that statement into evidence.
Chum claimed on postconviction review that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) move for a mistrial, (2) request a curative instruction, or (3) highlight the unfulfilled promise in closing argument.
The Superior Court denied relief on the pleadings, finding no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland, noting repeated cautionary jury instructions and "overwhelming" independent evidence (three eyewitness identifications).
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding that counsel’s inaction did not satisfy Strickland because the prosecutor did not act in bad faith, the trial court gave multiple admonitions, the evidence of guilt was strong, and the trial justice would not have granted a mistrial even if requested.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking a mistrial or curative instruction after prosecutor referenced an unintroduced confession in opening	Chum: counsel’s failure to act was constitutionally deficient and prejudiced the defense under Strickland	State: prosecutor did not act in bad faith; multiple jury cautions and strong independent evidence eliminated prejudice; trial justice would not have granted mistrial	Court held counsel’s omission did not meet Strickland’s deficient-performance or prejudice prongs; postconviction relief denied
Whether a prosecutor’s opening reference to a statement not introduced into evidence creates incurable prejudice	Chum: the unfulfilled promise caused incurable prejudice because jurors were led to expect inculpatory evidence that never came	State: opening statements are not evidence; absent bad faith and with curative instructions and strong evidence, no incurable prejudice	Court held no incurable prejudice here given lack of bad faith, repeated cautionary instructions, and overwhelming other evidence

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
Tempest v. State, 141 A.3d 677 (R.I. 2016) (standard of review for postconviction-relief findings)
Reyes v. State, 141 A.3d 644 (R.I. 2016) (discussion of Strickland standard)
Lipscomb v. State, 144 A.3d 299 (R.I. 2016) (prejudice prong and reasonable-probability standard)
State v. Chum, 54 A.3d 455 (R.I. 2012) (direct-appeal discussion of unfulfilled opening-statement promise and jury instructions)
State v. Perry, 779 A.2d 622 (R.I. 2001) (prosecutorial opening remarks reversible only if incurable prejudice shown)
State v. Micheli, 656 A.2d 980 (R.I. 1995) (same)
State v. Ware, 524 A.2d 1110 (R.I. 1987) (no incurable prejudice where prosecutor acted without bad faith and independent evidence supported conviction)