Accomplice testimony; Accomplice jury instructions; M Crim JI 5.4 & 5.6; Waiver; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v Young; People v Orlewicz

The court held that defendant waived his accomplice-instruction claim and failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to request those instructions. Defendant was convicted of felony murder and firearm offenses after evidence showed he shot through an apartment door when a customer failed to fully pay a minor who was engaged in sex work and being trafficked by defendant. The court first held that he waived his challenge to the lack of M Crim JI 5.4 and 5.6 because, after the instructions were read, defense counsel responded, “No, Your Honor,” when asked whether there was any objection. The court reasoned counsel “affirmatively approved the instructions,” which extinguished any instructional error. Even if the issue were merely forfeited, the court held that defendant failed to show outcome-determinative plain error because the accomplice’s testimony was corroborated by another witness, surveillance footage, and cell-location evidence. It further reasoned that the jury was “fully aware of the reasons to approach” the accomplice’s testimony with care because it heard about her reduced charge, her plea agreement, and her possible incentive to shift blame. The court also held that defendant failed to show prejudice because the jury received general credibility instructions, was specifically instructed to consider the accomplice’s agreement with the prosecution, and counsel attacked her credibility during cross-examination and closing argument. Affirmed.