Motion for a mistrial; Whether admission of an exhibit violated the MREs; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Combined DNA Index System (CODIS); Sexual-assault nurse examiner (SANE)

The court held that the “trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial.” Further, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. He was convicted of CSC III. Defendant contended that an exhibit (identified as the Notice of CODIS Association) “exposed the jury to prejudicial information suggesting that he had a criminal history.” Contrary to his assertions, the Notice “did not expose the jury to information that defendant was listed in a ‘national database.”’ Rather, the Notice “explicitly stated that a search of the state-level CODIS database resulted in a moderate stringency association between [the victim’s] left breast swab and a specific DNA database specimen.” The court found that his argument rested “on the unsupported assumption that a reasonable juror equates CODIS with criminal activity.” Based on the record, he did not “show that the jury was improperly exposed to and affected by an extraneous influence.” Also, admission of the Notice did not violate the MREs. It “was not improperly admitted under MRE 404(b) because there was no discussion or evidence of a crime, wrong, or act, other than the one that defendant was on trial for.” And the Notice was “not improper under MRE 609 because there was no discussion of a previous ‘conviction.’” The court found that the “jury was not tainted by the admission of the” Notice, which “did not disclose prior crimes, did not label defendant as a previously convicted offender, and did not suggest that CODIS association equated with criminal history.” The court also held that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Although defense counsel stipulated to the Notice, he “subsequently moved for a mistrial, successfully moved to redact prejudicial information in the SANE report, and repeatedly voice[d] objections in defendant’s favor.” These actions did not “fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Further, defense counsel did not perform deficiently by stipulating to the Notice “because the admission of that document did not expose the jury to prejudicial information suggesting that defendant had a criminal history.” Affirmed.