State v. White

1

STATE OF MARYLAND v. AUSTIN CHRISTOPHER WHITE

No. 1476-2023

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

September 12, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Wicomico County Case No. C-22-CR-19-000081

Beachley, Albright, Robinson, Dennis M., Jr. (Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Beachley, J.

On June 6, 2019, a Wicomico County jury convicted Austin White of sexual child abuse and three separate counts of third-degree sexual offense.^[1] White later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After the Circuit Court for Wicomico County granted White's petition in part and ordered a new trial, we granted the State's application for leave to appeal.

For the reasons below, we shall affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 2018, the Wicomico County Department of Social Services ("DSS") received a report alleging potential sexual abuse of M.N., then a minor.^[2] DSS employee Katie Beran interviewed M.N. at the Child Advocacy Center ("CAC") the next day. During the interview, M.N told Beran that White touched her in a sexual manner. Beran testified that M.N. was "very shy" and "very apprehensive" during the interview. After interviewing M.N.'s mother, ("M."),^[3] Beran ascertained that White was an ex-boyfriend of M. who lived with M.N. and M.'s three other children at the time the abuse occurred.

Beran conducted a second interview of M.N. in August 2018. During this interview, M.N. reported that White touched her vagina while they were watching a movie. M.N. also stated that she informed M. about the incident, but said that M. did not believe her. M. was interviewed the next day by Salisbury Police Detective Matthew Rockwell and admitted that M.N. had told her multiple times about White's inappropriate touching. M. was then charged with various criminal offenses related to White's abuse of M.N. After M. was charged, DSS implemented a safety plan where M.N. was placed with her biological father. M. pleaded guilty to child neglect and contributing to the condition of a child in need of assistance in March 2019, on the condition that she testify at White's trial.

Beran interviewed M.N. a third and final time in January 2019. Beran testified that, in contrast to earlier interviews, M.N. was a "different person" who was "much more comfortable in speaking" about White's conduct. During the interview, M.N. reaffirmed that White touched her while they were watching a movie, stated that he digitally penetrated her vagina in a separate incident, and said that he twice tried to force her to engage in oral sex.

White was charged with multiple sex-related offenses and was tried in June 2019. Beran testified at trial and the three interviews with M.N. were admitted into evidence. Catherine Beers, a licensed clinical social worker, was qualified as an expert in the field of child sexual abuse and testified for the State. M.N. testified to multiple incidents of sexual abuse by White. M. testified that she witnessed one incident of sexual misconduct by White and that M.N. had told her about two other incidents of inappropriate touching. During direct-examination, M.N. admitted to making up stories with her sister about M.'s boyfriends to "get them in trouble" because they "didn't like that [M.] was giving all [her] attention to her boyfriends[.]"^[4] Both M.N. and M. admitted during cross-examination that they had lied or otherwise changed their stories over the course of their previous interviews but maintained that they were telling the truth at trial.

White's defense focused on M.N.'s lack of credibility. In his testimony, White adamantly denied that there was "any inappropriate sexual or physical contact" with M.N.

White was found guilty of sexual child abuse and three separate counts of third-degree sexual offense. The jury acquitted White of two counts of second-degree rape and one count of third-degree sexual offense. Although the jury initially found White guilty of one count of second-degree rape related to fellatio, this Court reversed that conviction because his conduct occurred before 2015 and "prior to 2017, second-degree rape did not include fellatio [and] had only one modality-vaginal intercourse." White v. State, No. 1278, Sept. Term 2019, slip op. at 14 (filed Oct. 22, 2020). We affirmed White's remaining convictions and remanded the case for resentencing. Id., slip op. at 34. White was given an executed sentence of thirty-five years.

On April 7, 2022, White filed a petition for post-conviction relief, raising nineteen allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. A hearing was held in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County on February 1, 2023. White's trial counsel testified at the hearing.

In a written opinion, the court granted White's post-conviction petition on four grounds (the court denied all other claims of error). The court applied the two-prong test from Strickland v. Washington, which provides that defense counsel renders ineffective assistance when (1) "counsel's performance was deficient" and (2) "the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The court found that trial counsel was deficient in his cross-examination of Beran and Beers by allowing them to bolster M.N.'s credibility. The court also found that trial counsel was deficient for not objecting to evidence that White molested M.N.'s sister. The court concluded that these deficiencies were prejudicial to White and that "the result of his trial was fundamentally unfair and patently unreliable." Accordingly, the post-conviction court granted White's request for a new trial.

On October 2, 2023, we granted the State's application for leave to appeal the postconviction judgment. Additional facts will be provided as necessary to inform our analysis.

DISCUSSION

Review of a "post-conviction court's findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel [i]s a mixed question of law and fact. The factual findings of the post-conviction court are reviewed for clear error. The legal conclusions however, are reviewed de novo." McGhee v. State, 482 Md. 48, 66 (2022) (quoting Wallace v. State, 475 Md. 639, 653 (2021)).

"The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights guarantee criminal defendants the right to 'effective assistance of counsel.'" Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686). To demonstrate an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendants must meet a two-prong test established by the Supreme Court in Strickland:

First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.

466 U.S. at 687.

When evaluating whether trial counsel's performance was deficient, "a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance[.]" State v. Davis, 249 Md.App. 217, 222 (2021) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). When evaluating prejudice, the petitioner must demonstrate "either: (1) a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different; or (2) that the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable." State v. Syed, 463 Md. 60, 86 (2019) (quoting Newton v. State, 455 Md. 341, 355 (2017)).

I. Trial Counsel's Deficient Performance

A. Cross-Examination of Beran and Beers

The post-conviction court granted relief on two of White's allegations relating to trial counsel's cross-examination of Beran and Beers. In his cross-examination of Beran, trial counsel asked a series of questions that elicited the following responses:

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: In your experience as a social worker have you ever come across children who have sat in interviews with you who you considered to be lying?

[BERAN]: Most children don't lie about incidents of sex abuse.

...

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: In your experience as a social worker have you ever come across children that sat in an interview with you that you considered to be lying?

[BERAN]: Not about sex abuse.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: So never?

[BERAN]: Not about sex abuse. ...

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: When [M.N.] said in both the July 3rd interview and the August 8th interview that [White] only touched her on top of her clothes, right, do you believe that she was lying or telling the truth?

[BERAN]: I believe she was lying. She was not prepared to talk about it.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: . . . So she was lying, you'd acknowledge that she was actually lying?

[BERAN]: In the terms that you're looking at me to say for lying, it would look as though she was lying. But it also could have been repressed memory or she was not prepared to talk about it.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: How would you define lying?

[BERAN]: Not telling the truth.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: You would agree with me that [M.N.] was not telling the truth?

[BERAN]: I think there's usually a motive for a child to lie and I do not believe that there was any motive for [M.N.] to fabricate any of this information. She had nothing to gain.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: Right. But would you agree with me that her story changed?

...

[BERAN]: [It] did. After being in therapy for four to five months and realizing that she was a victim in this and that this was not her fault. She felt safe, which is the ultimate [sic] of the [CAC].

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: Did she feel safe yesterday or did sh

...