Sufficiency of the evidence; Resisting or obstructing a police officer; MCL 750.81d(1); People v Quinn; Whether the officer’s conduct was lawful; People v Moreno; Ineffective assistance of counsel for inadequately investigating the circumstances of the traffic stop, failing to consult an expert witness, & neglecting to request appropriate jury instructions; Trial strategy; Right to a properly instructed jury; People v Guajardo; Right to resist instruction; M Crim JI 13.1 & 13.2; Use Note to M Crim JI 13.5; Prejudice

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction, and that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. He was convicted of resisting or obstructing a police officer and sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to 10 days in jail. On appeal, the court rejected his arguments that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by inadequately investigating the circumstances of the traffic stop, failing to consult an expert witness, and neglecting to request appropriate jury instructions. First, “[g]iven the testimony and video evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant resisted or obstructed” and that the officer “acted lawfully when he attempted to arrest defendant.” Second, although defendant claimed “expert testimony ‘would have further supported the defense theory that’” the officer acted unlawfully, the mere fact that such testimony might have been helpful did not render counsel’s performance deficient. “The central issues in this case—visibility, distance, and perception—were within the understanding of the average juror.” Further, although “M Crim JI 13.1 may have been the more appropriate instruction for the charged offense, defendant cannot establish prejudice. By using M Crim JI 13.2, the [trial] court effectively increased the prosecution’s burden by requiring proof of intent, which is not required under MCL 750.81d(1).” Moreover, defendant’s “defense theory of the case—that he lawfully resisted an unlawful arrest—presumes that his actions were intentional. It is therefore unclear how including the intent element undermined the defense.” He also failed to show “that the omission of the Use Note language prejudiced his defense.” Affirmed.