Right to a speedy trial; People v Smith; Prejudice; Amendment of the information; People v Carlton; MCR 6.112(H); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Postconviction motion for a Ginther hearing; Sufficiency of the evidence for AWIM & felony-firearm convictions

The court held that defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated and that there was sufficient evidence to support his challenged AWIM and felony-firearm convictions. Further, the trial court did not err in allowing amendment of the information or in denying his Ginther hearing request. He was charged with AWIM and felony-firearm related to two victims, RH and JJ. As to his speedy trial claim, defendant relied “solely on the delay caused by the pandemic,” which the court noted “was considerably shorter than that in Smith. The delay was not attributable to the prosecution as held in Smith. Moreover, although prejudice was presumed, the prosecution met its burden of showing that no injury occurred, and defendant has not identified any relevant basis to conclude that his ability to defend against the charges was prejudiced.” He asserted prejudice based on witness-NH’s “testimony that due to heavy marijuana use, she lacked memory of overhearing defendant effectively inculpate himself when asked by another individual why he shot” RH. However, the court failed “to see the logic in” his argument, finding that, if anything, NH’s fading memory was “beneficial to defendant and a detriment to the prosecution, as she was plainly backtracking from her statement to the police at the time of the shooting that was damaging to defendant.” As to the admission of her police statement, “the substance of the event covered by the statement, i.e., defendant’s inculpatory response to a question, was going to be heard by the jury one way or the other, either through [NH’s] own testimony or the admission of the statement if disavowed. The 21-month delay between arrest and trial did not degrade the defense.” Balancing the four relevant factors, the court held “that defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not denied.” He also challenged the trial court’s grant of “the prosecution’s motion to amend the information by dropping the child-abuse charge and adding the AWIM charge” as to JJ on the brink of trial. But the court held “that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err by granting the motion to amend.” The defense theory was that “he did not shoot anyone because he was not at the scene. He essentially presented an alibi defense. That defense would necessarily extend to the new charge that was addressing the very same set of factual circumstances.” Affirmed.