Prosecutorial error; Vouching; Invoking the jury’s sympathy; Disparaging defendant for exercising his jury trial right; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to raise an erotic asphyxiation defense; Stipulating to the introduction of defendant’s recorded jail-call; Failure to lay a “proper foundation” to admit evidence & to adequately investigate the victim; Referring to jurors by numbers; People v Hanks; “Anonymous jury”; People v Williams; Hearsay; Sexual-assault nurse testimony about the victim’s statements during her exam; MRE 803(4); Sentencing; OVs 7 & 8; MCL 777.37(1)(a); “Sadism” (MCL 777.37(3)); MCL 777.38(1)(a)

The court rejected defendant’s prosecutorial error and ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and held that the trial court did not violate his due process rights by referring to the jurors by number. The trial court also did not err in admitting the sexual-assault nurse’s testimony about the victim’s statements during her exam, or in scoring 50 points for OV 7 and 15 points for OV 8. Thus, the court affirmed his convictions of CSC I, CSC II, unlawful imprisonment, and assault by strangulation, as well as his sentences of 225 months to 50 years for each CSC I conviction, 7 to 15 years for the CSC II and unlawful imprisonment convictions, and 4 to 10 years for the assault conviction. He claimed that the prosecution “erred by (1) improperly vouching for the victim’s credibility, (2) improperly invoking the jury’s sympathy, and (3) disparaging defendant for exercising his right to a jury trial.” The court disagreed in all respects. The “prosecutor never stated or implied that she had special knowledge about the victim’s credibility. She simply argued that, given the facts in this case, it could be inferred that she had no apparent motive to lie. This was not improper vouching.” In addition, “reading the challenged remarks in context, the prosecutor’s statements were not made to invoke sympathy; they were in furtherance of her proper argument in support of the victim’s credibility.” The court also determined that the statements defendant contended denigrated him for exercising his jury trial right, when read in context, “were also a continuation of the prosecutor’s permissible argument regarding the victim’s credibility. The prosecutor was simply arguing that it would be unlikely for the victim to fabricate this story, because it would result in her having to divulge highly intimate and personal aspects of her life to strangers during a criminal proceeding.” The court also rejected defendant’s claims that his “trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to raise a defense of erotic asphyxiation, (2) stipulating to the introduction of a recorded jail-call defendant made, (3) failing to lay the ‘proper foundation’ to admit video evidence of an interview the victim underwent about the assaults, and (4) failing to adequately investigate the victim and question her about her criminal history.”