Ineffective assistance of counsel; Prejudice; Strickland v Washington; Motion for new trial; Ginther hearing

The court held that defendant was not entitled to a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel because, even assuming deficient performance, “he cannot show prejudice.” He was convicted of second-degree murder and felony-firearm after the victim was shot while hunting. Evidence linking defendant to the murder included his presence near the crime scene, his DNA on a plastic bag found nearby, incriminating text messages, and Internet searches concerning the victim and law enforcement before the public knew about the death. After a Ginther hearing, defendant argued that counsel should have consulted a firearms expert, objected when the prosecution characterized footprints as creating a path between the victim and the bag containing defendant’s DNA, and offered evidence explaining his apparent early knowledge of the murder. On appeal, the court held that the firearms issue was not prejudicial because the proposed expert testimony “would have only confirmed Detective [M]’s testimony that there was no evidence connecting defendant’s firearm to the shooting.” It similarly held that even if an objection to the footprint argument had been sustained, the argument “was only one component of the prosecution’s case,” while “substantial independent evidence” connected defendant to the crime. Finally, the court held that failing to offer an alternative explanation for defendant’s knowledge was not prejudicial because such evidence “could have opened the door to GPS evidence placing defendant near the victim’s body and to potentially damaging rebuttal testimony.” Considering the evidence as a whole, defendant “has not demonstrated that any of counsel’s alleged errors undermine confidence in the verdict.” Affirmed.