Sufficiency of the evidence; Aggravated domestic violence; MCL 750.81a(2); “Serious or aggravated injury”; Comparing People v Brown; Ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request that the trial court view the entirety of a deputy’s body-worn camera footage; Trial strategy; Prejudice

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction, and that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. He was convicted of aggravated domestic violence, second offense, for assaulting the victim (his former girlfriend) as they drove together in a car. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, noting the evidence presented regarding the victim’s injuries was “directly comparable to the evidence presented in Brown.” Multiple witnesses described her “injuries, and photographs of the injuries to her head and face were admitted as evidence.” Defendant claimed “injuries such as lumps, bruises, and a chipped tooth” did not establish “a serious or aggravated injury, but that assertion is not supported by caselaw. A trier of fact may reasonably conclude such evidence demonstrated complainant sustained a serious or aggravated injury, as explained in Brown. In rendering its decision, the trial court stated it was ‘clear from all exhibits that [the victim] required immediate medical treatment.’” The trial court “cited the testimonies and photographs detailing [the victim’s] bleeding wounds and it opined that the ‘serious disfigurement in that her tooth is chipped or broken’ established the serious and aggravated injury element of the aggravated domestic violence offense.” In addition, “defendant’s initial argument, that expert testimony should have been required to prove the extent of the injuries in this case, is without merit, as” he conceded such expert testimony was not necessary. The court also rejected his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to request that the trial court view the entirety of the deputy’s body-worn camera footage. “Defense counsel could have made a reasonable strategic decision not to play this portion” for the trial court, as it depicted the injured victim “on the ground with agitated defendant yelling in the background. No portion of the video refute[d] the severity of her injuries, and it actually portrays [the deputy] insisting on a medical evaluation by EMS for” the victim. While defendant contended that this was “‘the one piece of evidence that would have shown [the victim] did not suffer a serious or aggravating injury[,]’ this assertion is not supported by the record, and defense counsel’s possible decision not to request this footage be played for the court should be considered sound trial strategy.” And even “if defense counsel’s decision not to play the entirety of the body-worn camera footage fell below the objective standard of reasonableness, defendant was not prejudiced by” it. Affirmed.