Ineffective assistance of counsel; Motion for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing; Failure to interview or call certain witnesses; Failure to secure a ballistics expert or an audio expert; Failure to object to a prosecution argument; Failure to offer evidence of defendant’s lack of a violent history for a period of time; MRE 404(a)(1); Testimony defendant cut his tether after the arrest warrant was issued; MRE 401; MRE 403; Applicability of MRE 404(b)(1)

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing as to his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview or call certain witnesses (S, B, and K). But it rejected his other ineffective assistance claims and his argument the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to offer testimony indicating he “cut his tether after the arrest warrant was issued in” the case. He was convicted of AWIGBH, carrying a weapon with unlawful intent, FIP, and felony-firearm, second offense. The court concluded he set forth facts requiring “development of the record to determine whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into witnesses” S, B, and K. The court noted the “defense asserted at trial was that defendant was not armed on” the date of the incident and that the victim (T) “was shot by her brother. Because the trial court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing, the only record evidence of trial counsel’s investigation into [B, S, and K] as potential witnesses are the affidavits attached to defendant’s motion for a new trial.” B and K stated that trial counsel never contacted them about testifying at trial. S stated “that she spoke with trial counsel but they did not discuss [S] testifying, nor did trial counsel ask her what she witnessed.” The fact that trial “counsel stated during opening statement that defendant was with ‘his wife [S], his two daughters [B and J], and his wife’s sister [K]’ when the altercation occurred” indicated that he was aware they were potential witnesses. In addition, their affidavits showed “that their testimony would have supported the defense theory asserted at trial, which was largely unsupported by record evidence.” The prosecution argued, and the trial court found, that their testimony would have been cumulative. The court disagreed, concluding “the different perspectives from which the witnesses observed the events . . . could have provided valuable testimony as to events not observed by [T], who denied seeing her brother with a gun, and” J. The court vacated “in part the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing,” and remanded the case “for an evidentiary hearing limited to [his] claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate three witnesses.” It retained jurisdiction.