CSC I; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Cross-examination; Custody-dispute theory; Bill of particulars; Prosecutorial misconduct; False testimony; “Reasonable assistance” to locate & serve defense witnesses; MCL 767.40a(5); Counseling records; In camera review; Psychologist-patient privilege; People v Stanaway; Speedy trial

The court held that defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct requiring reversal, error in denying in camera review of counseling records, or a speedy-trial violation. He was convicted of CSC I for sexually assaulting a minor family member. On appeal, the court first held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to more aggressively pursue a theory that the allegations were fabricated during a custody dispute because counsel elicited testimony suggesting an improper motive while avoiding details that could portray defendant as violent. It reasoned that this was “a matter of trial strategy, not deficient performance.” The court also found counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a bill of particulars because the preliminary examination adequately apprised defendant of the charges, and “time is not of the essence” in child CSC cases. The court next held that the prosecutor did not commit reversible misconduct by failing to correct alleged false testimony because the challenged statements were minor, immaterial, or elicited by defense counsel, and a prosecutor “‘need not correct every instance of mistaken or inaccurate testimony.’” It also rejected defendant’s claim about witness-location assistance because no written request under MCL 767.40a(5) appeared in the record, and the parties instead reached “an informal agreement.” The court further held that the trial court properly denied in camera review of the victim’s counseling records because defendant offered only a generalized theory that the records might contain impeachment material, which amounted to a speculative “fishing expedition.” Finally, balancing the speedy-trial factors, the court found that defendant was not denied a speedy trial because much of the delay was attributable to defendant or neutral circumstances, and he did not show that his defense was prejudiced. Affirmed.