Prosecutorial misconduct; Eliciting opinion testimony; Credibility; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to the testimony; Jury instruction; Notice of charges; Waived issue

The court rejected defendant’s claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting the opinion testimony of Detective N. Also, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finally, his claim that he was deprived of notice of the nature of the charge against him lacked merit. Defendant was convicted of felony-firearm and first-degree felony murder. He first argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting the opinion testimony of N. “Nothing in the prosecutor’s questions suggest that he was asking [N] to vouch for [witness-R’s] credibility. Although ‘it is improper for a witness . . . to comment or provide an opinion on the credibility of another person while testifying at trial,’” in this case N “was not referring to [R’s] general credibility; rather, he only addressed the consistency of the statements that [R] made to the police. Moreover, ‘a police officer may testify about his or her perceptions, during the course of an investigation, of whether a defendant was being truthful.’” Here, N “gave his professional opinion, based on his personal observations, that [R’s] statements were consistent throughout the investigation.” As a result, the court found that “the challenged testimony did not involve any improper opinion implicating defendant’s guilt or” R’s truthfulness. Relatedly, defendant argued “that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the testimony.” The court concluded that the “prosecutor’s examination of [N] did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. Defense counsel will not be considered ineffective for failing to advance a meritless argument.” Defendant next argued “that the failure to charge him on a theory of larceny violated his right to a fair trial.” He contended “that he was deprived of notice of the nature of the charge against him because he did not know that the prosecution would pursue a conviction of first-degree felony murder when it charged him with open murder.” This argument lacked merit. “Defendant’s warrant and information clearly stated that the substance of the charge against him was for the murder of [L] in violation of MCL 750.316.” Thus, he “was not deprived of his right to be informed of the offense charged. He has therefore failed to establish plain error affecting his substantial rights.” Affirmed.