Green v. Franke
Annotate this CaseA jury convicted petitioner Kyle Green of eighteen sex offenses involving nine victims, ages twelve through seventeen. After an unsuccessful direct appeal, petitioner sought post-conviction relief, alleging he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, petitioner alleged in his pleading that counsel performed inadequately by failing to request an instruction directing the jury to consider the evidence concerning each alleged victim separately and only as that evidence pertained to a specific charge or charges relating to that victim. The post-conviction court entered a judgment denying post-conviction relief. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that “there was no evident downside to requesting such an instruction; the upside, however, was plain: The jury would have been prohibited from concluding that petitioner had committed the charged acts based on a belief that he had a propensity to commit such acts.” The State petitioned for the Supreme Court's review of "recurring" issues of what a postconviction petitioner must show to establish inadequate performance of counsel and what a petitioner must prove to establish that counsel’s inadequate performance prejudiced the petitioner’s case. After review, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court concluded the post-conviction court applied the wrong legal standard for prejudice, so the Court reversed with regard to that issue. The judgment of the circuit court denying post-conviction relief was reversed and remanded with respect to petitioner’s instructional claim, and was otherwise affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.