Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to call character witnesses; MRE 405(a); Applicability of MRE 405(b) in a CSC case; Matters of trial strategy; Failure to pursue a fabrication defense; Adequate investigation; Failure to present defendant’s complete police interview video; MRE 106; People v McReavy

The court rejected defendant’s claims that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) call character witnesses, (2) pursue a fabrication theory, and (3) present defendant’s complete police interview video. He was convicted of CSC I and II against two children. He argued that defense counsel should have presented character evidence “in the form of opinion and reputation that defendant was not sexually interested in children.” As to MRE 405(a), the “testimony at the posttrial hearing indicated that none of [his] proposed character witnesses could competently attest to defendant’s good sexual morals or reputation in the community.” They all testified that he “did not have a reputation for having a sexual interest in children, but each also acknowledged not having spoken to [him] or anyone in his community about his sexual morals or preferences. Trial counsel testified that he doubted that” they could properly testify about “defendant’s reputation for good sexual morals, and the trial court concluded that trial counsel would not have been able to lay a proper foundation for such testimony. Defendant’s proposed witnesses did not have sufficient knowledge of [his] propensity, or lack thereof, to engage in sexual acts with children to properly offer such opinion or reputation testimony at trial.” In addition, such “testimony would have been inadmissible under MRE 405(b) because [his] character for not acting inappropriately around, or demonstrating a sexual interest in, children was not an essential element” of the offense. He next asserted defense counsel was ineffective for not pursuing the theory that the victims and his sister-in-law fabricated the allegations “as revenge against his mother[.]” But the record indicated “that, at the time of trial, counsel was not aware of specific threats against defendant and otherwise lacked strong evidence to support the fabrication theory.” As to the video, defense “counsel explained at the evidentiary hearing that he did not ask for the entire video to be played because the unplayed segments would have added or highlighted information damaging to the defense.” Defendant failed to overcome the strong presumption that the “decision to prevent this potentially harmful or prejudicial information from being presented to the jury was sound trial strategy.” Affirmed.