Summary
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment granting John Fahnley’s petition for post-conviction review and vacating his conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. The court held that competent record evidence supported findings that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present exculpatory evidence and witnesses and by failing to consult with Fahnley about the defense strategy.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the post-conviction court clearly erred in finding that trial counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient.
- Whether competent record evidence supported the post-conviction court's finding that counsel's failures prejudiced Fahnley and deprived him of effective assistance of counsel.
Holdings
- The post-conviction court's finding that Fahnley was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel was supported by competent record evidence and was not clearly erroneous.
- The post-conviction court properly found that counsel's errors prejudiced Fahnley by depriving the defense of available evidence and witnesses supporting his whereabouts, challenging the alleged victim's account, and establishing a possible retaliatory motive.
Key quotations
“Together, the two prongs of this case-by-case, fact-driven analysis, see McGowan, 2006 ME 16, ¶ 12, 894 A.2d 493, require a "showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable,"” (¶ 17, 188 A.3d at 875)
“Because the court's findings regarding ineffective assistance are supported by competent record evidence—including ample support for its findings regarding trial counsel's failure to interview witnesses, failure to present exculpatory evidence, and failure to communicate with his client regarding overarching defense strategy—we affirm the judgment.” (¶ 19, 188 A.3d at 876)
Factual background
Fahnley was prosecuted for alleged sexual contact with a minor in Maine during August 2008. Before trial, Fahnley obtained medical and financial records and identified witnesses that could have supported his whereabouts, challenged the alleged victim's timeline, and shown a possible motive for retaliation by the victim's family. Trial counsel did not present the credit-card records, several available witnesses, or significant prior inconsistent statements by the alleged victim, and did not consult with Fahnley before abandoning the defense strategy previously discussed with him.
Procedural history
Fahnley was convicted by a jury in 2014 of one count of sexual abuse of a minor and acquitted of two other counts. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed his conviction in 2015. Fahnley then petitioned for post-conviction review, alleging that trial counsel failed to investigate and present exculpatory evidence and witnesses and failed to consult with him about defense strategy. After a hearing, the Superior Court granted relief and vacated the conviction; the State timely appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.