Prosecutorial misconduct; Allegedly prejudicial comments; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to raise a meritless objection; People v Heft

Rejecting defendant’s prosecutorial misconduct and related ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the court affirmed. He was convicted of second-degree murder and felony-firearm. He argued “that the prosecutor made a prejudicial comment during his opening statement and four prejudicial comments during his rebuttal which, considered individually or collectively, require a new trial.” He also contended that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to most of them. The court disagreed in both respects. As to the opening statement comment, defendant asserted “the prosecutor unfairly ridiculed or mocked his insanity defense.” But the court noted that “the prosecutor acknowledged that mental health is a ‘serious issue.’” Further, given that defendant told a forensic psychologist “that a voice in his head told him to shoot the victim, who he perceived as a demon, it was reasonable for the prosecutor to analogize this case to the stereotypical phrase of ‘the devil made me do it.’” And, in light of the fact “that there was some evidence introduced at trial to indicate that defendant was sane and that he tried to evade criminal responsibility for the shooting by lying to the investigators, it was reasonable for the prosecutor to suggest that defendant was using his documented mental-health issues as a mere excuse to avoid responsibility.” In short, the prosecutor argued that given “the facts of the case, the insanity defense was not appropriate to apply to defendant.” Further, no language in the challenged comment struck the court “as particularly concerning or emotionally charged. Thus, the challenged comment here was not erroneous, and defense counsel” could not be considered ineffective for failing “to raise a meritless objection.” The court also concluded that three of the challenged rebuttal comments “were not erroneous, and only the second challenged comment of rebuttal, in which the prosecutor briefly suggested that defendant lied about using Lyft, can arguably be called erroneous. However, that comment was brief, did not rise to the level of plain error, and any objection by defense counsel could not have created any reasonable probability of a different outcome of trial.”