Cited by

(concluding that questions regarding sacred garments were proper for identifying the defendant even if “they relate[d] somewhat to the credibility of both the victim and the petitioner”); (concluding questions regarding the chapel in appellant’s house and

This claim fails because “[t]he manner in which cross-examination is conducted is a tactical decision to be made by the lawyer.”

We have held, however, that where religious faith evidence “is probative of something other than veracity, it is not inadmissible simply because it may also involve a religious subject as well.” – 59 (App. 1986) (finding religious faith evidence admissible to provide context for the witness’s identification of the suspect); (finding religious faith evidence admissible to prove the defendant’s method of gaining access to victims).

Although the witness’s unsolicited comment about “the Illuminati” was arguably improper, considering the record as a whole, the witness’s brief mention of that term was “merely [an] isolated reference[] and not significant in relation to the trial proceedings in their entirety.”

Moreover, tactical or strategic decisions rest with counsel, State v. Lee , , 215, , 158 (1984), and we will presume "that the challenged action was sound trial strategy under the circumstances," State v. Stone , , 461, , 680 (App. 1986).

(reference to religion is proper when used to justify defendant’s conduct); , (if evidence of religious belief “is probative of something other than veracity, it is not inadmissible simply because it may also involve a religious subject as well.”).