Specific unanimity jury instruction; Domestic violence; MCL 750.81(2); Great weight of the evidence; Assault or an assault & battery; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to request a specific unanimity instruction & an instruction for the lesser included offenses of assault or assault & battery; Failure to object to the prosecutor’s error; Alleged personal belief comment; Vouching; Witness credibility

The court held that “a specific unanimity jury instruction was not warranted, and the trial court did not plainly err by failing to give it.” Also, defendant’s conviction was not against the great weight of the evidence and he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. He was convicted of domestic violence, third offense. “MCL 750.81(2) makes it clear that there are alternative methods of establishing the first element of domestic violence, namely, (1) assault, or (2) assault and battery. The statute does not create distinct offenses. Additionally, throughout trial, the prosecutor did not present materially distinct proofs for the alternative means of committing the crime of domestic violence. Instead, he consistently claimed that the evidence supported a conviction based on both assault or assault and battery. The evidence also showed that the assault and battery occurred both closely in time and as part of a continuous course of conduct by defendant.” Defendant also argued that he was “entitled to a new trial because the jury’s verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.” The court noted that the only issue it needed “to address is whether defendant committed an assault or an assault and battery against” victim-SC. It held that because “the evidence does not weigh against defendant’s conviction, issues of credibility and discrepancies in the evidence are insufficient grounds for granting a new trial, and no exceptional circumstances exist to warrant overturning the jury’s verdict, defendant is not entitled to a new trial.” In addition, the court rejected his claims that a police witness vouched for SC’s credibility. Affirmed.