Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; Prejudice; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); MCL 768.27b; Admission by a party opponent; MRE 801(d)(2)(B); Relevance; MRE 401; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court did not err by admitting other acts evidence. He was convicted of CSC I and CSC II for sexually molesting the victim (LR) when she was 15. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present expert testimony regarding LR’s forensic interview after she disclosed he had sexually assaulted her. Trial counsel’s theory “was that LR was fabricating her sexual assaults as a way of getting attention from her friends, as evidenced by which details LR could and could not remember, and which details were only disclosed years later at trial. Defendant’s proposed expert testimony would have contradicted this theory, and instead would have asserted that LR was not fabricating the matter. Instead, LR—who was 15 years old at the time of the assaults and was 18 years old at the time of trial—was misremembering whether she was sexually assaulted in the first instance because her forensic interview was not performed entirely according to protocol and subsequent psychotherapy affected her memory.” This argument was “unavailing as it merely present[ed] a disagreement over trial strategy, which is insufficient to establish that trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Regardless, defendant has failed to establish that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant’s trial would have been different.” The court also rejected his claim that the prosecution “erred by eliciting testimony from LR that she was afraid of defendant because he had a firearm, he was violent when he killed a deer previously, he had driven a car through someone’s house, and he hit someone with his car.” Given the “minimal amount of attention that was devoted at trial to defendant’s statements to LR, and the lack of further details presented about these alleged incidents, LR’s testimony in this regard cannot be said to be unfairly prejudicial.” As such, “testimony about defendant’s statements was admissible, and defendant’s trial counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to make a futile objection.” Affirmed.