Due process; Exculpatory evidence; Brady v. Maryland; People v. Chenault; People v. Lester; Suppression of evidence; People v. Davis; Discovery; People v. Walton; Undiscovered evidence; People v. Harris; Expert testimony; MRE 702; Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Co.; People v. Jones; Right to counsel; United States v. Cronic; People v. Williams; Maine v. Moulton; U.S. v. Ross (6th Cir.); Ineffective assistance of counsel; U.S. Const., amend. VI; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 20; People v. Cline; People v. Jordan; People v. LeBlanc; Trial strategy; People v. Matuszak; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 3; MCL 777.33; People v. Cathey; People v. McDonald; Sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE)

The court held that the defendant was not denied his right to due process or counsel, his counsel was not ineffective, and the trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony. However, it did err in scoring OV 3 at 10 points. He was convicted of CSC III and domestic violence. He was sentenced to serve concurrent terms of 10 to 15 years for the CSC III conviction, and 93 days for the domestic violence conviction. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that his right to due process was violated when images of the victim's exterior genitalia and anus taken during a colposcope examination by a SANE were not produced. "Given the nurse's testimony that she did not observe any external injury to the anus or genitalia, it appears the images were cumulative in that they would have only confirmed that the nurse did not see any injuries during her examination" of the victim. "Thus, admission of the images would not have put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict." It next rejected his argument that the testimony of the SANE who examined the victim was improper expert testimony as it was not subjected to scrutiny required of scientific data. "In light of the nurse's experience and training as a certified SANE, the trial court allowing her to give an expert opinion was not an abuse of discretion." The court also rejected his claim that he was deprived of his right to counsel during his competency hearing. "The trial court accepted defendant's representation that he considered the competency report with his attorneys and accepted the stipulation that defendant was competent. It is evident that defendant was not deprived of his right of counsel during this critical stage of the proceedings." It further rejected his argument that his trial counsel was deficient in not requesting that the jury hear a recording of a police officer interviewing defendant that would allegedly have contradicted the officer's trial testimony, and in failing to exclude two possibly biased jurors from the jury. "Unless defendant's trial counsel knew that the recording unequivocally refuted the officer's testimony, which it does not, defendant has not demonstrated that failure to request that the recording be played was not sound trial strategy." Trial counsel's performance was not deficient for failing to excuse two jurors because counsel could have reasonably determined that both jurors would be able to approach trial with an open mind. The court agreed with defendant that the trial court erred in scoring OV 3 at 10 points, holding there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that the victim "was physically injured by the assault and required medical treatment." It ordered correction of his PSIR to reflect an OV 3 scoring of 0. However, the correction did "not warrant a resentencing when defendant's guidelines remain the same." Affirmed.