CSC I; MCL 750.520b(1)(f); Substitution of counsel; Sixth Amendment; Good cause; People v Ginther; People v Wilson; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Jury instructions; MCR 2.513(N)(1); Written jury instructions; MCR 2.513(N)(3); Verdict form; Presumption of innocence; Prior false sexual-assault allegation; Rape-shield statute; MCL 750.520j; MRE 608(b); People v Jackson; Mootness

The court held that the trial court properly denied defense counsel’s motion to withdraw and that defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel requiring a new trial. He was convicted of CSC I after LF testified that defendant threatened her with a gun, took her to his tent, drugged her, and sexually assaulted her. The trial court denied defense counsel’s pretrial motion to withdraw and later denied defendant’s postremand motion for a new trial after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the court first held that neither counsel nor defendant showed good cause for substitution because counsel stated only that they had “reached an impasse” and disagreed about the evidence and how to proceed, statements that “lacked specificity.” The court next held that counsel performed deficiently by failing to object when the jury received instructions in “an improper mix of oral and written forms,” but defendant failed to show prejudice given the absence of claimed jury confusion and the “overwhelming” testimonial, audiovisual, and DNA evidence. It also held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the verdict form because each count included both “Guilty” and “Not Guilty” options. As to the prior false-allegation issue, the court held that counsel was not deficient for failing to comply with MCL 750.520j because evidence “of a prior false allegation of sexual abuse does not constitute evidence of the victim’s ‘sexual conduct.’” Although the trial court may have improperly excluded the impeachment evidence, any error was harmless because the impeachment value was weak and there was “overwhelming testimonial and physical evidence” corroborating LF’s account. The court declined to address moot CSC III amendment and directed-verdict issues after those convictions were vacated. Affirmed.