Sufficiency of the evidence for an aggravated domestic violence conviction; MCL 750.81a(2); Serious or aggravated injury; People v Brown; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Strickland v Washington; Prejudice; Failure to use an expert or to request one for trial at public expense; Distinguishing People v Ackley; Failure to call certain witnesses; Closing argument/alleged concession of defendant’s guilt; Florida v Nixon; McCoy v Louisiana; Failure to obtain defendant’s cell phone; Failure to raise self-defense & request a self-defense instruction

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s aggravated domestic violence conviction and rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the court affirmed. He was acquitted of other charges. On appeal, he asserted there was insufficient evidence to establish the necessary element that the victim (DS) “suffered a serious or aggravated injury[.]” In Brown, the court “held that ‘serious or aggravated injury’ for purposes of MCL 750.81a is defined as a ‘substantial bodily (physical) injury or injury that necessitated immediate medical treatment or caused disfigurement, impairment of health or impairment of any bodily part.’” Here, the record showed that “there was sufficient, credible testimony that defendant picked DS up by her neck and threw her into a sliding glass door and that they were married at the time of the incident. A rational trier of fact could have reasonably found that [he] committed an assault against his spouse.” The court noted that he did “not appear to contest that those two elements were satisfied[.]” As to the serious or aggravated injury element, “there was trial testimony that as a result of the physical assault by the sliding glass door, DS suffered extensive swelling and bruising to her left jaw and the left side of her face, prolonged bruising and swelling on her neck, a split lip, bleeding gums, and a deviated septum. She also testified that her throat was ‘scratchy’” for months. Further, the jury was “shown pictures of these injuries. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that DS suffered a serious or aggravated injury as a result of the assault by defendant.” As to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, his “primary postconviction focus has been to second-guess a myriad of decisions by his trial counsel and relitigate his trial with a modified strategy that defendant believes would have resulted in acquittal on all charges.” The court found no merit in any of his claims. Among other things (1) he did not show “a reasonable likelihood that but for the lack of his proposed expert testimony, the result of [his] trial would have been different” and (2) trial counsel’s closing argument “did not constitute an explicit expression that the jury should find defendant guilty of the aggravated domestic assault charge.” Rather, the argument focused “on contesting the more serious” charges, of which he was acquitted.