Ineffective assistance of counsel; Motion to suppress firearm; People v Traylor; Failure to object to prosecutor’s argument; Vouching; People v Bahoda; Due process; Failure to preserve 911 recordings; People v Anstey; Adverse-inference jury instruction; People v Cress; Sufficiency of the evidence; Felonious assault; MCL 750.82; People v Nix; Identity; Evidence; Corpus delicti rule; People v Washington; Concealed Pistol License (CPL)

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, her due-process rights were not violated by the loss of 911 recordings, and sufficient evidence supported her felonious assault conviction. The case arose from a road-rage incident in which the victim testified that the driver of a tan Equinox pulled alongside her vehicle, waved a gun, pointed it at her, and caused her to fear for her life. The jury convicted defendant of felonious assault. She appealed on ineffective-assistance, due-process, and sufficiency grounds. The court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to move earlier to suppress the gun because the record showed he did move to suppress it once the prosecutor sought admission, and decisions about which motions to file are matters of trial strategy. The court next held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object during closing and rebuttal because the prosecutor did not improperly vouch, but instead argued from the evidence that the victim “didn't make it up, she’s telling the truth,” and the CPL remarks were responsive to the defense theory. The court also held that no due-process violation occurred because the “‘police have no constitutional duty to assist a defendant in developing potentially exculpatory evidence[,]’” and no adverse-inference instruction was warranted absent bad faith, especially where the recordings were purged under a routine 90-day policy. Finally, the court held that the victim’s testimony and defendant’s admissions sufficiently established felonious assault and identity, and that the corpus delicti rule did not bar her statements because they were “merely admissions,” not a confession. Affirmed.