Assaulting/resisting/obstructing a police officer (MCL 750.81d(1)); Requirement that the officer acted lawfully; People v Moreno; Command that defendant participate in a show-up; People v Sammons; Malicious destruction of police property (MCL 750.377b); Tardy disclosure of an exhibit; Brady v Maryland; People v Chenault; Norris v Schotten (6th Cir); Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); Scheme or plan or system of doing the acts; Notice; MRE 404(b)(2); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Factual predicate; Failure to object to the show-up identification procedure & the other acts evidence; Futility; Closing argument

The court held that the officers’ command that defendant participate in a show-up was not an unlawful command that justified his resistance. Further, he did not offer any authority supporting an “argument that a defendant may resist a police command, even if unlawful, by maliciously destroying police property.” He also failed to show that the tardy disclosure of an exhibit constituted a Brady violation. And the court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other acts evidence as to his prior acts of retail fraud. Finally, it rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. He was convicted of assaulting/resisting/obstructing a police officer, malicious destruction of police property, and second-degree retail fraud. He asserted “that because show-up identifications are viewed as unreliable and often are held to be inadmissible, they are justified only when necessary, such as when a witness may not otherwise be available for a line-up.” He contended a show-up identification was not necessary here “because there was little doubt that defendant was the perpetrator; thus,” he argued the officers’ command that he “get in the patrol car to participate in a show-up was not” lawful. The court disagreed with his reasoning. While “some show-ups result in evidence that is not sufficiently reliable, it does not follow that it is unlawful for an officer to require a defendant to participate in a show-up. Show-ups have not been declared unlawful police activity; they are merely considered problematic in producing reliable identifications. Defendant” failed to identify any authority supporting “his theory that it is unlawful for police officers to conduct a show-up as part of their investigation of a crime, or unlawful for an officer to require a suspect to participate in a show-up.” The court further noted that “the crime of malicious destruction of police property does not have” lawful police action as an element. As to the exhibit, a document purportedly establishing “the cost to repair damage to the patrol car[,]” the court found that defendant did not show he was prejudiced by its late disclosure, that it was favorable to him, or that it was material. And the court concluded the other acts “evidence was properly admitted to prove defendant’s scheme or plan, and a system in doing the acts.” Affirmed.