CSC I & II; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Alibi defense; MCL 768.20; Alibi instruction; M Crim JI 7.4; Competency evaluation; MCL 330.2020; MCR 6.125(D); Forensic interview expert; Distinguishing In re Casto; Medical records discovery; Privileged records; MCR 6.201(C); People v Stanaway; Cumulative error

The court held that defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial. He was convicted of multiple CSC offenses involving an adopted child. The trial court denied his posttrial motion alleging ineffective assistance. On appeal, the court first found counsel was not ineffective for failing to present an alibi defense because the wife’s testimony that she did not recall waking to find defendant absent from bed “does not amount to evidence of an alibi” and was instead used to show defendant’s physical limitations. The court also reasoned he was not prejudiced because the testimony was admitted, and the jury was instructed that he was “not required to prove his innocence or to do anything.” The court next rejected defendant’s competency claim because counsel requested an evaluation after his brain surgery, the parties stipulated to competence, and he identified no evidence that his condition affected his ability to understand the proceedings or assist in his defense. It also found no deficient performance in counsel’s failure to consult a forensic interview expert because no direct statements from the forensic interview were admitted, the interview played a minor role, and the testimony and DNA evidence would likely have produced the same result. Finally, the court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek the victim’s medical records because defendant offered only speculation that they might reveal another sexual partner, and such a request would have been a “mere fishing expedition.” Affirmed.