Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to obtain a forensic expert to testify about defendant’s psychological makeup; Failure to call particular witnesses; Failure to hire an investigator; Advice that defendant not testify; Jury instruction on accident (M Crim JI 7.3a); Handling of the jury’s request for a copy of a witness’s testimony transcript; MCR 2.513(P); Plain error review; Prosecutorial misconduct

The court held that defendant-Butler-Quarles was not entitled to relief based on her ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and that the trial court did not err in denying her request for an accident instruction. Her claim of error related to the jury’s request for a witness’s testimony transcript failed because she could not establish plain error that affected the outcome. She also failed to show plain error as to her prosecutorial misconduct claims. Thus, the court affirmed her convictions of AWIGBH, intentionally discharging a firearm in a building, first-degree home invasion, and felony-firearm. She argued that defense counsel was ineffective for, among other things, failing to “secure a forensic expert who would have testified regarding Butler-Quarles’ psychological makeup leading up to and at the time of the shooting.” She asserted that such an investigation would have shown that she “had no intention of harming anyone but herself and that she purchased the handgun for that very specific purpose.” The court first noted that “there already was evidence of [her] depression and suicidal thoughts admitted at trial. Second, Butler-Quarles being depressed or even suicidal is not a defense, per se, to the charges. [Her] depression arguably might explain why she initially purchased the handgun, but that reason for” doing so did not address why she was in her estranged husband’s “home without his permission or why” according to the assault victim (L), she “was crouched between the toilet and half-wall in the bathroom and fired upon [L] without any provocation.” The court concluded that, “assuming counsel’s performance was deficient in this aspect, there simply is not a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been any different had defense counsel procured” such psychological makeup evidence. As to the accident instruction, “there was no evidence of accident.” Regarding the jury’s request for a transcript of L’s testimony, the court found that, if “anything, less access to [L’s] testimony helped Butler-Quarles because [L’s] testimony was so damning.”