Prosecutorial error; Vouching; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Advice as to the right to testify; Ginther hearing; Trial strategy; Failure to object to witness testimony; Lay opinion testimony; MRE 701; Expert testimony; MRE 702; Failure to object to the prosecution’s closing argument

The court held that defendant was not entitled to a new trial on his prosecutorial-error and witness-testimony claims, but remand was required for a Ginther hearing limited to counsel’s advice that he not testify because of his “background.” Defendant was convicted of CSC III involving his former girlfriend’s teenage daughter, and the trial court denied his motion for a new trial without holding a Ginther hearing. On appeal, the court first held that the prosecutor did not improperly vouch for the victim because the challenged closing argument relied on her courtroom demeanor, emotion, and testimony rather than “personal knowledge,” and the prosecutor was “using evidence from trial to argue that the victim was worthy of belief.” The court next held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to family members’ testimony that the victim’s behavioral changes made sense after disclosure because the testimony was based on their “individual perceptions” and did not discuss “the typical behavior of sexual abuse victims” or opine that the victim was truthful. But the court held that a Ginther hearing was warranted on the right-to-testify issue because, if counsel advised defendant not to testify solely because of his “background,” and that meant his limited criminal history, the advice “may have been objectively unreasonable.” The court also found factual development could matter because defendant would have denied the assaults, challenged the alleged locations, and offered testimony contradicting the victim. Affirmed in part and remanded with jurisdiction retained.