Prosecutorial misconduct; Rebuttal argument; People v Isrow; Whether defendant was entitled to relief; People v Unger; Sufficient evidence to support two assault by strangulation convictions; “Strangulation or suffocation” (MCL 750.84(2)); Substitution of counsel motion; Good cause; People v McFall; Right to a speedy trial; Barker v Wingo; People v Williams; People v Smith

While the court saw merit in one of defendant’s rebuttal argument prosecutorial misconduct claims, it concluded that he failed to show he was entitled to relief. It also held that the evidence was sufficient to support both of his assault by strangulation convictions, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for substitution of counsel. Finally, it rejected his claim that his right to a speedy trial was violated. Thus, it affirmed his AWIGBH, third-offense domestic violence, unlawful imprisonment, and assault by strangulation convictions. As to his claims that the prosecutor “impermissibly bolstered the victim’s credibility and appealed to the jury’s sympathies by repeatedly opining on the veracity of” her memory of the incident, the court found it was clear from the record that the challenged statements “were in direct response to defendant’s” closing argument assertions that her testimony was not worthy of belief due to an inability to remember some things that happened before the incident. But the court saw “merit in defendant’s challenge to certain comments” the prosecutor made during rebuttal argument about “her own traumatic experiences.” Nonetheless, (1) they “were made in response to defense counsel’s arguments[,]” (2) the trial court “instructed the jury that the attorneys’ statements and arguments were not to be considered as evidence and that it could not render a decision based on bias or sympathy,” and (3) ample evidence of defendant’s guilt was presented at trial. This included testimony from the victim and the responding officer, photos of the victim’s injuries, and video footage showing him yelling at and physically assaulting her. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to “have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally impeded [her] breathing or blood flow by applying pressure to her throat or neck twice.” As to his motion to appoint new counsel for sentencing, he offered no argument to establish good cause. As to his speedy trial claim, the reasons for the delay did not support it, and he failed to show that “he suffered any prejudice to his defense[.]”