Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to call certain witnesses; Matters of trial strategy; Failure to produce certain evidence; Introduction of a prior uttering-&-publishing conviction during direct examination; Advice to limit testimony; Failure to move for a mistrial; Cumulative error; Sufficiency of the evidence for a CSC III conviction under MCL 750.520d(1)(c); Mental incapacitation or physical helplessness; Great weight of the evidence

The court rejected defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. It also held that the evidence was sufficient to support his CSC III conviction, and that the conviction was not against the great weight of the evidence. He was convicted under MCL 750.520d(1)(c). Among other things, he claimed that his trial counsel (F) was ineffective for failing to investigate and call certain witnesses. The court concluded F’s “decision not to further investigate or call these witnesses did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.” The record showed that “each witness’s proposed testimony either had limited relevance or risked undermining defendant’s credibility by establishing the complainant’s significant intoxication or contradicting defendant’s version of events. Even where testimony would have provided limited corroboration, it also introduced substantial impeachment risk. Notably, several of the proposed witnesses would have provided testimony that conflicted with defendant’s account that the complainant was coherent and not significantly impaired. Such testimony would have undermined, rather than supported, defendant’s theory of the case.” Thus, he did not establish “deficient performance or prejudice.” Defendant also contended F “was ineffective for introducing his 2006 uttering-and-publishing conviction during direct examination.” F explained that “she determined it would be better to introduce the prior conviction rather than let the jury speculate about defendant’s arrest. In essence, it was trial strategy.” The court noted that even if it were to agree that F’s performance in this respect fell below an objective standard of reasonableness (which it did not), defendant failed to show prejudice. The “reference to his prior conviction was brief, not emphasized, and not exploited by the prosecution.” The court also held that the “prosecution presented sufficient evidence that the complainant was mentally incapacitated or physically helpless when the sexual incident with defendant occurred.” And his credibility/great weight of the evidence challenge did not entitle him to a new trial. Affirmed.