Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to challenge the prosecution expert’s qualifications; Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc; People v Spaulding; MRE 702; Failure to advance a meritless argument; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); Hearsay; Whether there was any connection between the disputed testimony & MCL 769.27c; Plain error review; Denial of a motion for a mistrial

The court held that defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the prosecution expert’s (R) qualifications or to request a Daubert hearing. Further, the trial court did not improperly admit other acts evidence or otherwise commit evidentiary error, and did not abuse its discretion in denying his mistrial motion. He was convicted of aggravated assault, CSC I, and witness bribery. The court first concluded that trial counsel “‘had no grounds for requesting a Daubert hearing into the scientific reliability’ of [R’s] expert testimony under the” circumstances. R testified about “her education, decades of experience, professional accolades, and her having served as an expert witness in that and other courts over 100 times. In light of that testimony and [R’s] curricula vitae (admitted into evidence without objection, and to which defendant raises no challenge on appeal), the trial court qualified [R] as an expert and permitted her to testify ‘as to her opinion . . . in the field of victimization and trauma dynamics through sexual assault and domestic violence and nonintuitive victim responses.’” Defendant did not meaningfully challenge her qualifications, or “acknowledge, let alone reckon with,” the court’s precedent establishing “the futility of the challenge he insists trial counsel should have made.” And counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise a futile objection. As to his other acts evidence claims, among other things, because R did not testify about “any prior bad acts, defendant” could not show “the trial court plainly erred, let alone in a manner affecting his substantial rights, by failing to exclude her testimony under MRE 404(b).” He also raised an unpreserved challenge to testimony by the complainant that he choked her on an occasion not involved in the charges. But even if it was inadmissible under MRE 404(b), the prosecution sought to admit it under MCL 768.27b, and defendant did not challenge its separate admissibility under the statute. Affirmed.