¶1I respectfully dissent because, in my opinion, there is probative evidence in the record to support the PCR judge’s finding that Respondent’s trial counsel was ineffective in both failing to object to hearsay, and in eliciting that testimony on cross-examination. E.g. Smith v. State, 369 S.C. 135, 631 S.E.2d 260 (2006). I would therefore affirm the PCR order granting Respondent a new trial.
¶2The majority finds that trial counsel’s failure to object to the hearsay evidence identifying Respondent as the perpetrator was not ineffective as it was the result of a valid strategic decision. I disagree. Trial counsel apparently believed that if she objected to the hearsay, it might lead to the State’s introduction of a video tape in which the victim described the abuse. In fact, part of that tape was played at trial at trial counsel’s request, and over the State’s objection. Had the State wished, however, it could have sought to introduce the remainder of the tape following counsel’s introduction of a portion of the interview. See State v. Cabrera-Pena, 361 S.C. 372, 605 S.E.2d 522 (2004). Further, to the extent trial counsel testified that she did not object to the improper hearsay testimony because counsel feared if she objected to *74the hearsay they would simply play the tape “over and over and over,” her fear is grounded in a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. The State was not entitled to introduce the victim’s prior consistent statement unless Respondent charged the victim with a recent fabrication or improper motive or influence. See Rule 801(d)(1), SCRE. I simply do not understand how objecting to third party hearsay testimony that the victim had identified Respondent as her abuser could have opened the door to permit the State to play the interview tape.
¶3In my opinion, no valid strategic decision explains trial counsel’s failure to object to the hearsay testimony repeating the victim’s identification of Respondent as her abuser. Magazine v. State, 361 S.C. 610, 606 S.E.2d 761 (2004) (counsel’s strategy reviewed under “an objective standard of reasonable”). I would therefore affirm the PCR order.