Ineffective assistance of counsel for limiting defendant’s testimony; A criminal defendant’s right to testify in his or her defense; People v Spaulding; Trial strategy; People v Horn; Prejudice; Due process right to present a defense; Plain error review

The court held that even if defendant’s counsel’s conduct fell below the objectively reasonable standard for presenting a defense, he was not prejudiced by it. He was convicted of felony murder, FIP, and felony-firearm, second offense, for shooting and killing the victim, who was working at a check cashing store. On appeal, he argued that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because, “when he chose to testify in his own defense, his trial counsel barely asked him any questions. Assuming without deciding that this conduct fell below the objectively reasonable standard for presenting a defense,” the court concluded that defendant failed to show that it prejudiced him. “We accept the possibility that there may have been valid reasons for defense counsel’s limited questions. Given the incriminating DNA results, counsel may have made a strategic decision to avoid questioning [defendant] further on the DNA evidence to avoid drawing further attention to it or avoiding a credibility problem. If so, defense counsel’s refusal to question [him] on this point would have been professionally reasonable.” In addition, “defense counsel’s limited questioning could have been an imperfect attempt to comply with” MRPC 3.3 and 4.1, which “prohibit counsel from knowingly eliciting false testimony.” The court also rejected his claim that “his due process right to present a defense was violated by the trial court ruling that he was precluded from testifying further.” Assuming without deciding that an error occurred and it was plain, he again failed to establish prejudice. There “was multifaceted, high-confidence evidence of” his guilt, including DNA evidence, direct eyewitness testimony implicating him as the shooter, and circumstantial evidence. Affirmed.