Ineffective assistance of counsel; Expert qualifications; MRE 702; Lack of opposing expert; Failure to interview & call certain additional witnesses; Failure to offer into evidence a photo of a showerhead; Hearsay; Great weight of the evidence

Concluding that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence, the court affirmed his convictions of CSC I and CSC II. Defendant argued that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to make additional efforts to disqualify expert-C under MRE 702. The court held that because it has determined that C’s “testimony, at least under circumstances like those in this case, does not constitute improper vouching and is admissible under MRE 702, it would have been futile for defense counsel to make further efforts to disqualify [C] as an expert or exclude his testimony.” Defendant next argued “that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the possibility of consulting or presenting an expert to rebut” C’s testimony. The court concluded that counsel “had sound strategic reasons for pursuing a strategy of discrediting the victim instead of engaging in a battle of the experts, and defendant has not established a reasonable probability that this strategy affected the results of the proceedings against him.” Defendant also argued that “counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and call certain additional witnesses and for failing to offer into evidence a” photo of a showerhead. The court determined that “the value of this proposed testimony and evidence would have been minimal at best, and potentially harmful, and counsel was not ineffective for not presenting it.” Finally, defendant argued that counsel “should have challenged [the victim’s adult family friend’s] testimony concerning two statements by [the victim] that he contends were inadmissible and prejudicial hearsay.” The court concluded that reversal was “not required; one statement was technically inadmissible hearsay, but any objection would have likely hurt defendant more than helped, and the other was clearly admissible under an exception to the prohibition against hearsay evidence.”