stating that what evidence to present, including whether to call or how to question witnesses, is presumed to be a matter of trial strategy which this Court will not second-guess with the benefit of hindsight
How later courts described this case
- stating that what evidence to present, including whether to call or how to question witnesses, is presumed to be a matter of trial strategy which this Court will not second-guess with the benefit of hindsight
- finding that the defendant was not deprived of a substantial defense where defense counsel raised the defense through cross- examination of the complainant and in his closing argument
- holding that “decisions regarding what evidence to present and whether to call or question witnesses are presumed to be matters of trial strategy”.
- indicating that counsel is presumed to be effective, and the burden to demonstrate otherwise is heavy burden
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BANDSTRA, J.
(concurring). I concur with the lead opinion. I do not conclude that the errors requiring *401 reversal, which likely affected the jury’s determinations of the alleged victim’s credibility in this close case, did so only with regard to testimony concerning the criminal sexual conduct charges. “Unless the accused receives the effective assistance of counsel, ‘a serious risk of injustice infects the trial itself.’ ” United States v Cronic, 466 US 648, 656 ; 104 S Ct 2039 ; 80 L Ed 2d 657 (1984), quoting Cuyler v Sullivan, 446 US 335, 343 ; 100 S Ct 1708 ; 64 L Ed 2d 333 (1980). Thus, I disagree with Judge SCHUETTE, who concludes that the errors did not affect the conviction for first-degree home invasion and felonious assault.