Summerville v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Summerville’s convictions, holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing-argument description of fibers found on the defendant’s truck. The court also held that the trial court acted within its discretion in limiting cross-examination about the medical examiner’s prior disciplinary action because the defense failed to show a meaningful connection between that discipline and bias toward the State. There are no separate opinions.