Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to identification testimony; Failure to object to opinion testimony on shoplifting tactics; People v Oliver; Lay witness opinion testimony; MRE 701; Speedy trial; People v Williams; Cumulative effect of alleged errors

The court concluded that defendant-Morris was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Also, after weighing each of the speedy-trial factors, it held that his right to a speedy trial was not denied. Finally, reversal of his conviction due to cumulative error was not warranted where he did not show any errors of consequence. He was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder “for immolating a single victim.” Morris argued “that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to object to certain identification testimony and opinion testimony on shoplifting tactics.” But he could not “establish a resulting prejudice. And in the case of the shoplifting testimony, he cannot establish that trial counsel was deficient.” Because he could not “show a reasonable probability that the outcome of this trial would have been different had his counsel objected, reversal is not appropriate.” The court held that even “if defense counsel had grounds to object because [witness-H] identified Morris in the surveillance recordings, reversal is not required because it is not reasonably probable that counsel’s error impacted the outcome of this trial.” As to his trial counsel’s failure to object to H’s testimony on the basis that H offered expert testimony on shoplifting behaviors without ever being qualified to testify as an expert, “any opinion testimony he offered was as a lay witness only.” There was “no basis for finding that [H’s] observations in this matter are dependent on reliable principles or methods, as opposed to his own experience and observations. [H’s] observations and opinions about what Morris was doing in the store were properly admitted as lay witness opinion testimony, consistent with” Oliver. Similar to the officers in Oliver, H “relied on his experience in retail security to describe for the jury why Morris’s actions and movements were consistent with shoplifting items from the store. Again, [H’s] testimony was not dependent on scientific or technical principles or methods, but was based on his own perceptions, using his experience and training. Morris has not shown that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to [H’s] testimony on the ground that he should have been qualified as an expert witness when it is apparent that [H] was not offering expert testimony under MRE 702.” Such an objection would have been futile. The court added that “any error by counsel did not affect the outcome of this trial, given the overwhelming evidence of Morris’s guilt.” Affirmed.