Due-process right to a fair trial; Police failure to locate the unknown donor of DNA; People v Dickinson; Applicability of Brady v Maryland; Police testimony; MRE 701; Failure to disclose a video recording; People v Chenault; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a futile objection; Sufficiency of the evidence of defendant’s identity as the perpetrator; Great weight of the evidence

The court held that (1) defendant was not entitled to relief based on his claims of due-process or Brady violations, (2) defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance, (3) there was sufficient evidence of his identity as the perpetrator to support his convictions, and (4) “the jury’s verdicts were not against the great weight of the evidence.” He was convicted of armed robbery, FIP, fourth-degree fleeing and eluding a police officer, and felony-firearm for the robbery of a convenience store and gas station. The court found that the gravamen of his first argument on appeal was “that the police’s failure to locate the unknown donor of DNA to the mask seized from the car used in the robbery denied his due-process right to a fair trial. It did not.” While he relied on Brady, that case did not support his claim. He “had no due-process right to have the police search for or develop any evidence.” And there was no misrepresentation about the DNA evidence. “The jury heard testimony that, in addition to defendant’s DNA on the mask,” the DNA of a second, unidentified donor was also present. The “DNA analyst testified that she did not know which donor contributed the most DNA, or when or how the DNA was contributed. The jury also heard [a police witness, P] testify that he did not obtain any additional DNA reference samples to send to the laboratory for analysis. The defense was free to attack the adequacy of the police investigation in an effort to argue that deficiencies in the investigation undermined the weight and strength of the prosecution’s case.” The court also rejected defendant’s related ineffective assistance of counsel claim, noting “that any objection that defense counsel would have raised on the basis that police failed to look for the unknown DNA donor would have been futile.” Next, the court determined that challenged testimony from P fell “comfortably within testimony allowed by MRE 701.” As to defendant’s Brady claim related to a video recording, he did not show “that the prosecution or the police ever actually possessed video footage of the robbery that also contained audio, let alone suppressed” it, and he failed to establish that had it “existed, it would have been favorable to him.” The court further concluded that, based on “the circumstantial evidence in this case, a rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of the charged crimes.” Affirmed.