Relevance; MRE 401 & 402; People v. Mills; People v. Layher; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v. Crawford; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v. Bahoda; People v. Ackerman; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to raise a futile objection; People v. Ericksen; Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Reese; People v. Oros; First-degree premeditated murder; MCL 750.316(1)(a); People v. Bennett; Identity; People v. Fairey; Felon in possession (FIP)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence, that the prosecution did not commit misconduct, that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that the evidence was sufficient to establish his identity. He was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, FIP, and felony-firearm. The trial court sentenced him to 2 years for felony-firearm, followed by concurrent prison terms of life without parole for first-degree murder and 48 months to 80 months for FIP. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing irrelevant evidence about a potential witness (C) who was murdered by defendant’s nephew, noting the evidence was relevant to assist in the evaluation of witness-B’s credibility. “Defendant’s contention that [B’s] testimony—she feared for her life and had been threatened—was irrelevant lacks merit. Such testimony had relevance to assist the jury in evaluating her credibility as a witness.” It also rejected his claim that even if relevant, the trial court should have excluded it because it was substantially more prejudicial than probative by associating him with the murder of C. “[T]he trial court limited the evidence of [C’s] murder and precluded any evidence that defendant had been present when his nephew committed the murder. The evidence that the trial court permitted did not place defendant at the scene of [C’s] murder or suggest that defendant had any involvement in” it. The court next rejected his contention that the prosecutor committed misconduct and violated his right to a fair trial when he deliberately elicited irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial testimony regarding C’s murder and urged the jury to convict him on the basis of their civic duty and fears, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to object to the misconduct. The prosecutor “referenced the matter to argue why the jury should believe” B and find her trial testimony credible, which did not constitute misconduct, and thus, counsel was not required to make a futile objection. Finally, it rejected his argument that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to establish that he murdered the victim, finding this argument meritless. Affirmed.