Holland v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Holland's motion for new trial, rejecting challenges to the use of his statements, the admission of written statements as similar-transaction evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error. The Court held that Holland did not show that the impeachment ruling caused him not to testify, that his later written statements were not obtained through an unequivocal promise of confidentiality, and that the similar-transaction evidence was properly admitted. It also held that counsel was not constitutionally ineffective and that cumulative-error review was unavailable because Holland failed to establish at least two errors.