State v. Dap

Summary

The court affirmed Dap Tuak Dap’s convictions, holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove both possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and unlawful discharge of a firearm. It also upheld the denial of Dap’s motion for a new trial and concluded that his ineffective-assistance claims were either insufficiently pleaded or could not be resolved on the direct-appeal record. The court rejected cumulative-error relief because the case was tried to the court and no individual errors warranted relief.