Commonwealth v. Kerrigan

J. A32034/06the defense.” Id at 7. Kerrigan’s trial counsel’s failure to require such aninstruction did not prejudice Kerrigan, as he argued that Kerrigan did notabuse A.R. in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, and the jury would haveconvicted Kerrigan even if the instruction were given. See Commonwealthv. Potts, 566 A.2d 287, 295-96 (Pa. Super. 1989). We also note that thereis doubt as to whether an objection as to jurisdiction was of any merit, asrequired by the first prong of the ineffectiveness test because there issufficient evidence to establish that the abuse involving penile penetrationoccurred in Pennsylvania. Kerrigan’s third question does not require reversalof his judgment of sentence. 15 In support of his fourth question, Kerrigan argues that his trial counselwas ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s instructions to the jury,claiming that the instructions shifted a burden of proof from theCommonwealth to Kerrigan. Brief for Appellant at 46. Kerrigan argues thatthe trial court’s instructions relating to believability of witnesses placed aburden of being believed on Kerrigan and deprived him of his right toreasonable doubt. Brief for Appellant at 46. As discussed above, in order tosucceed on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant mustprove: the merits of the underlying claim, that counsel had no strategicreason for taking the actions he took, and that but for the errors of counsel,the outcome of the trial would have been different. See Battle, 883 A.2d at-11-