Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to improper testimony & inadmissible evidence; MRE 701; Lay opinion; Other acts evidence; Whether photos of the victims’ bodies were irrelevant & unfairly prejudicial; Attorney fees

The court concluded that defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Also, other acts evidence was properly admitted. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting photos of the victims’ bodies. Finally, the trial court properly imposed $2,000 in attorney fees. She was convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree arson. Defendant contended “trial counsel was ineffective for eliciting prejudicial information from a witness for no strategic reason.” The court held that while “the jury ultimately did not believe [the defense] theory, it was not an objectively unreasonable strategy.” Defendant asserted “that trial counsel’s failure to adequately cross-examine the witnesses was so flagrant that ‘no prejudice need be shown.’” The record clearly showed “that trial counsel vigorously cross-examined witnesses, obtained concessions from fire investigators that a cigarette could have caused the fire, and significantly impeached testimony regarding a prior threat allegedly made by defendant. The presumption of prejudice only applies if counsel totally fails to subject the prosecution’s case to any opposition whatsoever.” The court held that was not the case here. Defendant also asserted “that counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor asked” her former boyfriend’s friend (B) “if he ever saw defendant acting jealous. Defendant contends there was ‘insufficient foundation for [B] to opine on her emotions or emotional state….’ However, this question was proper because it was based on the witness’s first-hand observations.” Thus, there was no reason for trial counsel to object. Defendant argued that Detective M’s “testimony was improper, and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object.” The court held that “pursuant to MRE 704, lay opinion testimony is not objectionable just because it encompasses an ultimate issue that the trier of fact must decide. [M] testified that the video showed the person who started the fire. She did not identify defendant as the person in the video. The detective’s opinion was based on her perception of the video, helpful to the jury, and not invasive of the province of the jury. Trial counsel, therefore, had no basis to object.” The court held “that defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Because [M’s] testimony was not speculative, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise an objection.” Affirmed.