Ineffective assistance of counsel; Shell-casing evidence; People v Coy; United States v Brown; Failure to make a futile objection; Victim’s motive to lie; Trial strategy; Gunshot residue; Lay opinion testimony; MRE 701; Evidence of a negative gunshot-residue test; Failure to obtain an expert

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. He was convicted of AWIGBH, FIP, and felony-firearm for an incident in which defendant stopped his car in front of the victim’s car and fired shots at the victim. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. First, it rejected his claim that defense counsel was ineffective for “failing to properly investigate the science supporting analysis of shell casings as well as failing to object to the prosecution’s expert witness, who testified that certain shell casings came from the same firearm, and the prosecutor’s argument that those shell casings were a ‘match.’” It found that any objection to statements made by the prosecution’s firearms and toolmark expert or by the prosecution during closing argument would have been futile because they were acceptable under Brown. “Beyond that, defendant has presented no authority, binding or otherwise, from a Michigan court on the subject of shell-casing evidence.” Second, the court rejected his contention that defense counsel was ineffective for “failing to present evidence showing that the victim had a motive to lie about defendant’s involvement in the shooting.” Defense counsel “made a sound strategic decision not to introduce evidence that would have revealed defendant’s motive to shoot at” the victim. Third, the court rejected his argument that defense counsel was ineffective for “the manner in which he handled evidence of a gunshot-residue test.” It found that: (1) defendant failed to show that an objection to the testimony at issue would have been successful, (2) defense counsel did everything he could to make use of the negative gunshot-residue test, and (3) without a showing that an expert would have benefited defendant, defense counsel cannot be characterized as ineffective. Affirmed.