Right to a properly instructed jury; People v. Riddle; Self-defense; MCL 780.972(2); People v. Dupree; People v. Mette; People v. Guajardo; Right to resist an unlawful arrest; MCL 750.81d; People v. Moreno; People v. Quinn; Great weight of the evidence; MCR 2.611(A)(1)(e); People v. Lemmon; People v. Lacalamita; New trial; People v. Morris; People v. Bosca; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v. Dobek; People v. Lane; Presumption that jurors follow their instructions & instructions cure most errors; People v. Mahone; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Grant; People v. Dixon; Trial strategy; People v. Foster; People v. Roscoe; Failure to make a futile objection; People v. Ericksen

The court held that defendant was not denied his rights to a properly instructed jury or the effective assistance of counsel, that the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence, and that the prosecution did not commit misconduct. He was convicted of resisting and obstructing a police officer, and making a false report of a medical or other emergency. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 365 days in jail and three years’ probation for the former, and 93 days in jail for the latter. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that he was entitled to a new trial because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on self-defense. “The trial court’s jury instructions were consistent with Moreno and fully informed the jury that it must find the police officers’ arrest lawful in order to find defendant guilty of MCL 750.81d.” It also rejected his claim that the jury’s verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, noting that the evidence did not “preponderate so heavily against the jury’s verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow the verdict to stand.” The court next rejected his contention that he was denied a fair trial and due process as a result of prosecutorial misconduct, finding he failed to “demonstrate that the prosecutor’s actions at trial deprived him of a fair and impartial trial.” Finally, the court rejected his argument that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to object to several purported instances of prosecutorial misconduct, the trial court’s admission of prior bad acts evidence, and the jury instructions, or to request an instruction on self-defense. It held that an objection to the jury instructions or prior bad acts would have been futile, and that an objection as to alleged prosecutorial misconduct would not have affected the outcome. Affirmed.