Jury procedure; Juror anonymity; People v Hanks; Prosecutorial error; Facts not in evidence; People v Stanaway; Burden shifting; Denigration of counsel; People v Watson; Jury instructions; Good-faith claim of title; M Crim JI 7.5; People v Wilder; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to request a meritless instruction

The court held that defendant was not denied a fair trial by the use of juror numbers, the prosecutor’s remarks, or the absence of a good-faith claim-of-title instruction, and that counsel was not ineffective for failing to request that instruction. Defendant was convicted after a consolidated jury trial of multiple home invasion offenses, domestic violence, and aggravated stalking arising from repeated break-ins and assaults against a former partner. On appeal, the court held that referring to jurors by number did not create an “anonymous jury” because defendant was not deprived of biographical information or meaningful voir dire, and his presumption of innocence was not compromised. The court next held that the prosecutor did not improperly argue facts not in evidence because it was a reasonable inference that the purse seen at trial was the one defendant stole. And while he asserted “the prosecutor’s remarks implicated defendant’s ‘decision to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege’” not to testify, the court found that, read in context, nothing in the remarks suggested that they “somehow amounted to an improper comment about defendant’s decision.” The court further held that the prosecutor’s comments did not shift the burden of proof or denigrate defense counsel when read in context as a response to attacks on the victim’s credibility. Finally, the court held that a good-faith claim-of-title instruction was not supported because there was no evidence defendant honestly believed he had a legal right to the victim’s property, and therefore counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a meritless instruction. Affirmed.