Expert testimony; Insanity defense; Intoxication or withdrawal from substance use; Great weight of the evidence; Testimony on malingering; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to correct improper testimony; Evidence of defendant’s drug & alcohol use; MRE 404

The court found no merit to defendant’s challenges to (1) the testimony of Dr. A (who completed a criminal responsibility evaluation for him), (2) testimony of malingering as to his symptoms of mental illness, and (3) alleged character evidence. He was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. He first challenged Dr. A’s “opinion that his apparent delusions and psychotic behavior at the time of the offenses stemmed from voluntary intoxication with various substances. Dr. [A] also suggested that defendant feigned mental illness after the offenses[.]” His argument amounted “to a disagreement over the strength and weight of the evidence regarding legal insanity.” Evidence indicated “that nitrous oxide was knowingly abused by defendant.” In assessing his “voluntary intoxication levels, Dr. [A] relied on defendant’s intoxication—stemming from either nitrous oxide, marijuana, or both—as a basis to conclude that [he] was not legally insane.” The court concluded that “it was not legally erroneous for Dr. [A] to rely on her finding that defendant was intoxicated—whether by nitrous oxide or marijuana or a combination of both—to support her finding that [he] was not legally insane at the time of the offenses because his psychotic symptoms were the result of voluntary intoxication.” The court noted that mere disagreements as to “the interpretation of conflicting evidence do not establish that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.” Next, defendant argued that Dr. A “improperly provided instructions to the jury on the law related to the insanity defense.” To the extent he complained about instances where Dr. A “referred to statutory definitions of insanity and mental illness, defendant” did not show any error. To the extent he complained “about the prosecution eliciting explanations and definitions of the statutory terms, defendant is correct that plain error occurred.” But the court held that he failed to establish prejudice. Beyond “merely asserting that the trial court’s instructions to the jury did not correct Dr. [A’s] alleged misstatements of law, defendant does not explain how the trial court’s jury instructions did not accurately reflect the law or were otherwise somehow erroneous.” Next, he argued “that the expert witnesses should not have been permitted to testify that he was lying or malingering regarding his symptoms of mental illness.” He contended “that such testimony amounts to improper expert testimony regarding defendant’s credibility similar to evidence of a polygraph test.” But the court found that he did not show “that there was any error in permitting the experts to discuss which of [his] descriptions of symptoms may or may not have been accurate as part of their respective discussions whether he met the definition of legal insanity.” Affirmed.