Ineffective assistance of counsel; Strickland v Washington; Child memory expert; Forensic interview; MRE 803A; MCL 768.27a; Trial strategy; Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) registration; Cruel or unusual punishment; People v Kardasz; Lifetime electronic monitoring (LEM); MCL 750.520n; Unreasonable search; People v Hallak

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and that his lifetime SORA registration and LEM requirements did not entitle him to relief. He was convicted of CSC II involving a child under 13 after the child disclosed that defendant exposed himself and later reported sexual contact during a forensic interview. On appeal, the court first held that defendant did not establish ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to consult or call a child-memory or suggestibility expert. He did not provide the factual predicate needed to overcome the presumption of trial strategy, including whether counsel considered an expert, whether counsel elected to rely on the victim’s “deficient recollection to avoid challenging or attacking the child victim during trial,” or whether counsel chose not to turn the case into “a battle of expert opinions.” The court emphasized that counsel pursued a reasonable theory that the child “repeatedly changed her story” and “forgot” key details, and defendant failed to show that an expert would have created a “reasonable probability” of a different result. It next held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object at trial to admission of the first forensic interview because the trial court had relied in part on MCL 768.27a, and defendant failed to challenge that basis on appeal. It further found that even assuming the interview was inadmissible hearsay under MRE 803A, admitting it reasonably supported the defense theory because it allowed the jury to see the “alleged improper questioning” and compare the interview with contradictions in the child’s trial testimony. Finally, the court rejected defendant’s challenges to lifetime SORA registration and LEM. As to SORA, it held that his facial challenge failed because Kardasz held that the 2021 SORA is punishment but “not cruel or unusual on its face.” As to LEM, the court held that Hallak remained binding and had already determined that LEM for CSC II involving a child under 13 was not cruel or unusual punishment and was not an unreasonable search because the “strong public interest” in monitoring offenders outweighed the “minimal impact” on reduced privacy interests. Affirmed.