Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); Outcome-determinative error; Jury view; Structural error; Neder v United States; Shackles in courtroom; Ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call experts on narcotics & motorcycle gangs; Trial strategy; Failure to make a futile objection; Sufficiency of the evidence; First-degree murder; Premeditation & deliberation; Second-degree murder; Malice jury instruction; People v Goecke; Distinguishing Mullaney v Wilbur

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions. He was convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, felony-firearm, and stealing a financial transaction device, arising out of his shooting and killing of the three victims. On appeal, the court first found he was not entitled to appellate relief as to his argument that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of two domestic incidents involving his wife. There was “no suggestion that evidence of defendant’s prior conduct toward his wife had any bearing on the verdict, let alone that it was outcome-determinative.” The court next found the trial court did not violate his right to participate in his trial by not allowing him to attend the jury view of the house where the shootings occurred as “caselaw does not support the conclusion that a defendant’s failure to appear for a jury view amounts to a structural error requiring reversal.” In addition, defense “counsel testified that he preferred that defendant not attend the jury view rather than allowing the jury to see defendant in prison garb or shackles, and defendant agreed.” The court also found he was not entitled to a new trial because the trial court placed him in a leg iron clipped to a floor toggle after four days of trial. It determined that he failed to show how he was prejudiced. Moreover, defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s decision not to call a narcotics or motorcycle gang expert because: (1) “it was a reasonable strategic decision by defense counsel to highlight the effect that the drugs may have had on the victims through [a detective’s] testimony, while preventing additional testimony about the effect that meth[] may have had on defendant’s conduct,” and (2) the decision not to call a motorcycle gang expert “did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and it did not prejudice defendant’s trial.” The court also found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that defendant committed the first-degree murder of one of the victims as “the evidence was sufficient for the jury to decide that it fairly supported an inference of premeditation and deliberation.” Finally, because “the trial court instructed the jury on all elements of the crimes and did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to defendant, no instructional error occurred.”