Due process; Brady v Maryland violation; Materiality; People v Christian; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to investigate; Vouching testimony; Failure to impeach; Expert testimony; Denial of Ginther hearing request; Sentencing; OV 7; MCL 777.37(1)(a); Sadism; Torture; People v Lydic; People v Alexander

The court held that defendant was not entitled to a new trial, a Ginther hearing, or resentencing after his torture conviction. Defendant argued that the prosecution suppressed favorable evidence that the cottage owner saw the victim act angry and block defendant’s path after the assault, but the court held the evidence was not material under Brady. It reasoned that defendant made “no meaningful argument” showing a reasonable probability of a different result, particularly where the victim’s account was supported by photographs and testimony from the cottage owner, deputy, and ex-boyfriend that she was “visibly injured and distraught.” The court next held that defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to interview or call the cottage owners because the prosecution’s evidence was “overwhelming,” counsel had already impeached the victim, and the omitted evidence did not undermine confidence in the verdict. It also rejected the vouching claim because the deputy’s use of “assault” described his perception of photographed injuries and did not “purport to vouch for the victim’s credibility.” The court further held that counsel’s impeachment strategy was reasonable because it focused on the victim’s intoxication to support defendant’s theory that she fell while drunk, and defendant failed to identify any expert who would have testified favorably about hallucinogenic mushrooms. Finally, the court upheld the 50-point OV 7 score because defendant’s death threats, humiliation, confinement, hair-dragging, and lies that no one could save the victim showed “sadism” or conduct “similarly egregious” that substantially increased her fear and anxiety. Affirmed.