Ineffective assistance of counsel; Eliciting testimony from an expert witness that was “misleading” & “prejudicial”; MRE 702’s relevancy & reliability requirements; “Opening the door” for the prosecutor to elicit testimony bolstering the victim’s credibility; Trial strategy; Prosecutorial error; Vouching; Eliciting testimony about the victim’s character for truthfulness; Prejudice; Other acts evidence; Notice that certain witnesses would be testifying; Constitutionality of MCL 768.27a; Request for a remand for a Ginther hearing

The court concluded that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and although it held that plain prosecutorial error occurred, under the circumstances, he was not entitled to a new trial. Further, as to his other acts evidence claims about “his sexual assaults of the victim’s sister and two other individuals,” the court found that he “failed to establish plain error affecting substantial rights.” Finally, his claim that he was unfairly prejudiced by the admission of evidence from these witnesses had no merit. He was convicted of CSC I. The trial court qualified witness-G, “over defendant’s objection, as an expert in the area of ‘child sexual abuse and behavior’ on the basis of her education and extensive experience.” Defendant claimed that counsel’s cross-examination of G “was so ‘unhelpful, unreliable, and prejudicial’ to defendant’s case that it deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” However, defendant failed “to acknowledge that his attorney obtained several useful concessions from [G] that, although rare, children do lie about sexual abuse and sometimes even intentionally misidentify their abuser. Defense counsel used these concessions his during closing argument to support his theory that the victim’s allegations against defendant were false.” But the court acknowledged that “counsel’s question about how often children make false claims led to an answer that undermined defendant’s theory of victim fabrication. Nevertheless, on the whole, defense counsel had a sound, strategic reason for asking the now challenged questions in order to support defendant’s theory. In addition to the question being a component of an overall strategy that required establishing that children do lie, counsel would have likely expected the jury to inevitably learn that such false claims are uncommon. Even viewing the question in isolation, counsel could reasonably have concluded that it would be better if the jury heard it on cross-examination, where counsel had a greater modicum of control than on redirect.” While the court concluded that the prosecution committed plain error in eliciting testimony about the victim’s character for truthfulness when defense counsel had not directly challenged this, it found that the jury did not convict an actually innocent man, noting that “the evidence against defendant was overwhelming.” Affirmed.