Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to request admission of all of the police interview; MRE 106; Rule of completeness; Prejudice; Prosecutorial misconduct; Misleading the jury during closing argument

Concluding that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and his prosecutorial misconduct claim failed, the court affirmed his convictions of second-degree murder, felony-firearm, FIP, and carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent. Defendant faulted “his trial counsel for stipulating to permit the jury to hear some, but not all, of the statement that he gave to law-enforcement officers following his arrest in Illinois.” The court agreed “with the trial court's assessment that it was unlikely that defendant would flee Michigan in fear for his life because of the pending drug charge.” Although “the officers did not bring up the shootings until later in the interview, defendant was aware that he was implicated in a much more serious crime than the drug-possession case.” The court found that counsel “did not render deficient representation by deciding that the omitted portions of defendant's interview would be more harmful than helpful to the defense.” It held that the fact that “defense counsel engaged in sound trial strategy by stipulating to admit only portions of the interview is especially clear when considering that the prosecutor did not emphasize defendant’s question about getting ‘caught’ until her closing argument. Defense counsel was not aware until after the close of evidence that the portion of the interview in which defendant referred to getting ‘caught’ would be highlighted for the jury.” Defendant further insisted “that his counsel should have moved to admit his statements during the police interview denying guilt.” The court concluded “that counsel's decision not to seek admission of that portion of the interview did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Finally, to the extent defendant suggested “the jury should have heard the portion of the police interview in which defendant indicated that ‘quite a few guys’ also went by the nickname ‘Chicago,’ [he] cannot show either deficient performance or prejudice because that fact was supported by evidence at other points in the trial.” He also couldn’t “establish prejudice, so the trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a new trial or a Ginther hearing on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.”