Following a jury trial, Brian Keith Redman was found guilty of aggravated child molestation, child molestation, and attempted child molestation based on several incidents involving his stepdaughter, B. C. On appeal, Redman contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in allowing his character witness to be cross-examined concerning a prior juvenile adjudication; and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective. We discern no error and affirm.
1. Redman argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for aggravated child molestation, child molestation, and attempted child molestation. We disagree.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence.
Short v. State,
So viewed, the evidence reveals that, beginning when B. C. was around seven years old, Redman would put his tongue into B. C.’s mouth when he kissed her. Redman also asked B. C. to scratch his penis and “put his penis in [her] mouth ... [and] made [her] suck on it. . . [and] swallow [his semen].” The evidence that Redman asked B. C. to perform sex acts on him sufficed to sustain his conviction for attempted child molestation. See, e.g.,
Wittschen v. State,
“There is no requirement that the testimony of the victim of child molestation be corroborated.” (Citation omitted.)
Adams v. State,
186
*606
Ga. App. 599 (1) (
2. Redman argues that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to cross-examine his character witness, Sharon Woody, regarding Redman’s prior juvenile adjudication for child molestation because a certified copy of the juvenile adjudication was not tendered. We disagree.
In choosing to have Woody testify as to Redman’s good character, Redman opened the door for the State to introduce all evidence bearing on his character, including “convictions of crimes, guilty and nolo contendere pleas, juvenile offenses, and incidents which illustrate the defendant’s character.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Anthony v. State,
3. Redman argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for opening the door to allow the State to introduce evidence of his past juvenile adjudication for child molestation. We disagree.
To show ineffective assistance of counsel, Redman was required to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficient performance prejudiced his defense.
Strickland v. Washington,
Redman claims his counsel was caught unprepared when the State sought to impeach Woody’s knowledge of Redman’s good character by cross-examining her about Redman’s juvenile adjudication for molesting his mentally disabled sister. The record reveals, however, that trial counsel was aware of Redman’s juvenile adjudication prior to the trial and made a strategic decision to call a witness to testify regarding Redman’s good character. “[Strategic or tactical decisions at trial are the exclusive province of the lawyer, and decisions concerning whether to call character witnesses and whether to place the defendant’s character in issue are matters of strategy or tactics such as do not equate with ineffective assistance of counsel.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Benefield v. State,
Here, counsel made a strategic decision to call a character witness after consulting with Redman. While such a decision also opened the door to the admission of bad character evidence, it does not follow from this that Redman’s counsel was ineffective. See
Kimmons v. State,
Judgment affirmed.