00-3084 State v. Tulley

Listen to this article

“Because the three prospective jurors with whom the court spoke in camera did not serve on the jury, we conclude that the State has met its burden to show that there is no reasonable possibility that the court’s error contributed to Tulley’s conviction. Therefore, we conclude that the circuit court’s in camera interview of three prospective jurors, though error, was harmless error.”

Further, given the testimony at trial, we conclude that defendant has not met his burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the jury instruction or verdict forms because the verdict forms and jury instruction correctly stated the applicable law.

“The jury was presented with evidence of multiple crimes in the form of A.K.’s testimony. The instruction that the court gave required the jury to unanimously agree on Tulley’s guilt or innocence for each count. The verdict forms properly specified the location of each alleged assault and whether sexual contact or sexual intercourse was alleged to have occurred at each location. This is not a case in which a juror reasonably could have doubted whether a particular charged activity at any location occurred while also being convinced that other charged activity did occur at the same location. There was no basis for finding that some of the sexual assaults that A.K. described had occurred but others had not, because all of the assaults at all of the locations were described and supported by the same uncontradicted testimony. Therefore, we conclude that Tulley has not met his burden to show that trial counsel’s performance in this area was deficient.”

Judgments affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Vernon County, Rosborough, J., Roggensack, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant:

For Respondent: