Admission of photographs; Probative value; Relevance; MRE 401; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; Elements of AWIGBH; People v Stevens; Burden of proof; M Crim JI 17.7; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 3; A life threatening or permanent incapacitating injury; MCL 777.33(1)(c); Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the scoring of OV 17 (degree of negligence); Intent to do great bodily harm with a motor vehicle; Comparing People v Herron (Unpub); Failure to make a futile objection; Prejudice

The court held that the trial court did not err by admitting photos of the victim’s injuries or in scoring OV 3, and defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. She was convicted of AWIGBH and felonious assault for driving her car into the victim (her mother’s then-wife). The trial court sentenced her to three years’ probation with a term of six months in jail at the end of the probation that would be waived if she successfully completed probation. The court rejected her argument that the trial court improperly admitted photos of the victim’s injuries because they lacked probative value and were prejudicial. While the photos, “standing alone, do not demonstrate whether the victim sustained her injuries from an intentional assault or an accident . . . defendant ignores that the credibility of all the witnesses was in dispute and that ‘[t]he jury was entitled to view the nature and extent of the injuries for themselves[.]’” Further, if “the jury believed the victim’s and mother’s testimony that defendant intentionally drove into the victim, the injuries she suffered ‘may also be indicative of . . . defendant’s intent[.]’” As a result, the photos “were probative.” They were also not unfairly prejudicial. “‘[I]f photographs are otherwise admissible for a proper purpose, they are not rendered inadmissible merely because they bring vividly to the jurors the details of a gruesome or shocking accident or crime, even if they may tend to arouse the passion or prejudice of the jurors.’” The court also rejected her claim that the trial court erred when it assessed 25 points for OV 3. “The victim said that she was missing bone, muscle, and skin. Eighteen months after the assault, the victim, who had already endured numerous surgeries to address her ankle injury, required additional surgeries. She had metal fixtures in her leg. And, consistent with the medical advice that she had received, she described her ankle injury as ‘a forever injury’ and said that she would ‘never be the same.’ On this record, we cannot conclude that the sentencing court clearly erred in assessing 25 points for OV 3.” Finally, the court rejected her contention that her defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the assessment of 10 points for OV 17. And “even assuming that defense counsel performed deficiently by failing to object to” this scoring, defendant could not establish prejudice given that “her sentencing guidelines range would remain the same if” these points were subtracted from her OV score. Affirmed.