Sufficiency of the evidence for a perjury committed in courts conviction (MCL 750.422); M Crim JI 14.1; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to admit the transcript of the forfeiture hearing at which defendant perjured herself; Failure to object to allegedly impermissible evidence; Abandoned other acts evidence claim

The court held that “the direct and circumstantial evidence, and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, were sufficient to support defendant’s perjury conviction for her testimony during” a civil forfeiture hearing. And while it agreed that her trial counsel performed deficiently by “failing to admit the transcript of defendant’s six-page testimony from the” hearing it concluded she did not establish prejudice. She was convicted of one count of perjury committed in a civil forfeiture hearing held to establish ownership of horses seized by Animal Control from her property. Her conviction was “for testifying that (1) she did not know Animal Control was on her property until she walked outside to talk to officers, and (2) she did not have a telephone or computer on the morning of the seizure.” She challenged whether there was sufficient evidence to show her statements were false. As to the first statement, while she asserted “she could not hear anything due to running a shower, fan, and heater,” a deputy heard other officers knocking on the door from “the back side of the house. Moreover, both Animal Control and Sheriff’s Department officers’ testimony and on-scene video showed that the knocking and the noises arising from the seizure was generally very loud. Within two minutes, defendant’s phone records show that she began making phone calls and sending texts over the next 24 minutes.” The court found that from those text messages, it was reasonable to infer she and her husband “were referring to the officers knocking. While [she] denied that she knew that [they] were from Animal Control during this period, [they] were in the process of loading the horses into the stock trailers. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer if defendant was aware of the officers’ presence in her yard because that is what she told her husband.” There was also sufficient evidence to support her conviction based on her second statement. “The evidence showed that the Sheriff’s Department officers, who assisted Animal Control in executing the search warrant, seized three cell phones and a computer tower. Further investigation showed that defendant used one of those phones to communicate with” multiple people while the search warrant was executed. As to the ineffective assistance issue, it only related to this latter basis for her conviction. Her other false statement was sufficient to sustain her conviction. Affirmed.