Motion for a new trial; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to properly respond to an expert witness’s sudden unavailability; Right to present a defense; Newly discovered evidence; Consideration of a postconviction polygraph exam; Other acts evidence of domestic violence; MCL 768.27b(1); Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; Relevance; MRE 401 & 402

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for a new trial on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, right to present a defense, newly discovered evidence, and a postconviction polygraph exam. Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting other acts evidence of domestic violence. He was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of his wife, A. He discovered A “hanging from the basement rafters in their home with an extension cord wrapped around her neck and attached to a hook in the rafters.” Defendant argued that trial counsel failed to properly respond to a defense expert’s (Dr. D) “sudden unavailability due to a personal medical emergency, and that counsel’s deficient handling of that matter deprived defendant of the effective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial on this ground after” a Ginther hearing. The court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion “that defense counsel’s decision to respond to [D’s] sudden and unexpected absence by offering [D’s] previous opinion letter was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.” The record indicated “that counsel considered and explored other potential options for responding to the situation and had legitimate reasons for declining to pursue those options, reasonably believed that [D] would not be available to testify anytime soon, and reasonably believed that [D’s] opinion letter could assist the defense by providing the jury with an opinion from a qualified expert that [A’s] death resulted from a suicidal hanging.” The fact that the “opinion letter did not address other potential causes for [A’s] thyroid cartilage tip fracture or fully discuss the significance of the absence of petechiae in [A’s] eyes did not render counsel’s strategy unsound where counsel was able to effectively explore those issues in his cross-examination of other witnesses.” As a result, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial on this basis. The court further determined that (1) D’s absence did not deprive defendant of his right to present a defense, (2) additional proposed testimony by D did not qualify as newly discovered, and (3) defendant failed to establish “that the foundational requirements for consideration of polygraph results were satisfied.” Affirmed.