McLaughlin v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of McLaughlin's first postconviction motion, holding that the Superior Court properly considered the ineffective-assistance claim presented in his submissions without separately notifying him that those submissions would be treated as a postconviction motion. The Court also agreed that counsel's decision not to aggressively cross-examine the child witness was a reasonable strategy and that McLaughlin failed to establish prejudice. The Court treated the Superior Court's filing-date misstatement as harmless error.