Ineffective assistance of counsel; Evidentiary decisions; Alleged failure to investigate & prepare for trial; Admission of the deceased victim’s prior statements; Hearsay exception for statements of a then existing state of mind (MRE 803(3)); People v Ortiz

Rejecting defendant-Wallace’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims and holding that the deceased victim’s (K) prior statements about her plans or intent to stop loaning him money were admissible under MRE 803(3), the court affirmed. He was convicted of first-degree murder, unlawful imprisonment, forgery, and uttering and publishing. K, his great-aunt, had loaned him “large sums of money, and before her death, had informed several people that she intended to stop” doing so. Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims fell into two broad categories – evidentiary decisions and alleged failure to investigate and prepare for trial. As to the former, among other things he asserted his attorney was ineffective for “failing to draw attention to potentially exculpatory DNA evidence” and to a baseball bat. Regarding the DNA evidence, the court concluded that defense counsel “made the strategic decision to rely upon the already favorable DNA evidence. The decision not to attempt to impeach favorable evidence was a sound trial strategy.” As to the bat, had defense counsel tried to impeach a police witness’s “single statement on the basis that the bat had not been in the Midland County Police Department evidence log, the prosecution would have been able to establish that the bat had been seized by a different police agency. This would have drawn further attention to the bat in a case that involved blunt-force trauma.” The court was not persuaded “the trial court made a mistake when it found that Wallace’s lawyer exercised a reasonable strategy by not pursuing the issue.” In regard to the alleged failure to investigate and prepare, the court held that “when he did not uncover any evidence to support Wallace’s theory that his brother had framed him, Wallace’s lawyer had every reason to believe that presenting Wallace’s brother as an alternative murderer would have been fruitless. And when Wallace’s lawyer was aware that pursuing Wallace’s family history would have opened the door to Wallace’s criminal history involving his family, Wallace’s lawyer had sound reasons to believe that pursuing such a strategy would be harmful.” The court also rejected defendant’s argument that his attorney was ineffective for failing to move to sever the forgery-related charges. Finally, the court held that K’s statements, which were each admissible, “were not rendered inadmissible merely because they were numerous.”