In Lane v. State, 257 S.W.3d 22, 26 (Tex. App.--Houston 14th Dist. 2008, pet. ref'd) the appellant contended that his counsel was ineffective for having failed to properly challenge opinion testimony concerning the truthfulness of the child complainant. There, a children's assessment center representative testified that false accusations are "extremely rare," are "a rare occurrence," and that children "do not make--tend to make false accusations." Id. at 24-25. Another representative from the center testified that "in her opinion formed after counseling the child complainant . . . , the child complainant had post-traumatic stress disorder caused by childhood sexual abuse." Id. at 25. The Lane court reasoned that, because jurors must decide the credibility of the parties, opinions on the truthfulness of a child complainant's allegations or that a class of persons to which the complainant belongs is truthful, are prohibited. Id. at 27. Testimony that false accusations of childhood sexual assault are very rare had the effect of telling the jury they could believe the child's testimony. Id. Testimony that it had been determined from counseling sessions that the child had been sexually assaulted constituted direct testimony that the complainant was being truthful. Id. Such testimony is prohibited. Id. The Lane court concluded that the record on direct appeal was sufficient to determine whether appellant's trial counsel's performance was deficient. Id. The court further concluded that, even though there was nothing in the record explaining counsel's strategy for allowing the testimony into evidence, "there was no conceivable strategy or tactic that would justify allowing this inadmissible testimony in front of the jury." Id. at 27. The court held that counsel's performance was deficient. Id. at 28.