People v. Hong Tong

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, in light of other methods of impeaching State’s witness used by trial counsel, failure to impeach on other specific grounds was a matter of trial strategy that did not constitute deficient performance
• explaining that the State is only required to prove the essential elements of the charged crime
• In light of the cross-examination conducted by trial counsel, it was not patently unreasonable for trial counsel not to generally impeach the witness’s credibility with her prior convictions.
• counsel’s tactical decision will not form the basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim unless it was “so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen it” (citation and punctuation omitted)
• strategic and tactical decisions, like those about the extent of cross-examination, “will not form the basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim 26 unless it was so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen it” (citation and punctuation omitted)
• “[I]n the more than two decades since Mallory was decided, we have not extended its holding to prohibit comments on the silence or failure to come forward of witnesses other than the criminal defendant who is on trial, and we see no reason to do so now.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).