 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Brooks9/9/2003
counsel to argue consent, not mistaken identity. The Court stated in People v Julian, that counsel's decisions concerning the theories to present are presumed to be exercises of sound trial strategy. Counsel thus had nothing to gain from challenging the procedures used to identify defendant as the person who interacted with the complainant.
Concerning defendant's statements, the evidence that defendant calmly waived his Miranda rights and cooperated with the police suggests that had defense counsel moved to suppress defendant's statements, the motion would have failed. Counsel is not obliged to argue futile motions. As a matter of strategy, counsel may well have preferred to have defendant's statements come into evidence in that they could reasonably be characterized as describing an occasion that did not involve force, threats, or injury .
For these reasons, defendant's claim of ineffective assistance must fail.
IX. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case, a reviewing court must view the evidence of record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if a rational trier of fact could find that each element of the crime was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendant's sufficiency challenge concerning his convictions urges this Court to credit that body of evidence that tended to exonerate defendant to the exclusion of all other evidence. Defendant asserts that the complainant's testimony was "highly incredible," emphasizes that she was intoxicated at the time, and that medical personnel were unable to determine if a sexual assault had occurred.
"Credibility is a matter for the trier of fact to ascertain. We will not resolve it anew." A single witness' account can suffice to persuade a jury of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant's plain testimony that defendant physically forced her to perform oral sex, and that she was injured when defendant forcibly penetrated her vagina is sufficient to support the convictions.
Defendant protests that his car was not tested for the complainant's fingerprints or hair, and the condom was not tested to determine the source of its body fluids. We find the lack of testing constitutes no evidentiary deficiency because the defense conceded physical interaction between defendant and the complainant. The question of sufficient evidence is a function of what was presented, and not of what was not presented.
For these reasons, we reject this claim of error.
Affirmed.
Richard A. Bandstra
Helene N. White
Pat M. Donofrio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|