If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

March 18, 2021

V No. 350590

Montcalm Circuit Court

TERRY C. HALLER, LC No. 2019-25102-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and MARKEY and TUKEL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals by right his jury trial conviction of resisting and obstructing a police 

officer, MCL 750.81d(1). A charge of domestic violence, MCL 750.81(2), was dismissed when 

the complainant failed to appear at the trial. The trial court sentenced defendant to nine months in 

jail and three years’ probation. We affirm.

I. FACTS

On the night of February 7, 2019, Michigan State Police Trooper Megan Moryc responded 

to a private residence where defendant, his life partner Shawn Maxon, and their children resided. 

Trooper Moryc testified, “I was dispatched out to a domestic violence situation [regarding] assault 

involving a knife.” The trooper elaborated that dispatch informed her that it was defendant who 

was wielding the knife. She drove to the house with her emergency lights and siren activated but 

turned them off just before she pulled into the driveway of the residence. Trooper Moryc was not

accompanied by a partner or other officer. Trooper Moryc testified that a fellow officer radioed 

her as she drove to the home and informed her that defendant kept a .22 caliber long rifle and a 

shotgun in the garage.

Dashcam video footage from the trooper’s cruiser was admitted into evidence. And the 

video, along with the trooper’s testimony, revealed that the cruiser faced the front of the home’s 

detached, two-bay garage upon entering the driveway. Trooper Moryc parked in the driveway, 
-2-

leaving a distance of approximately 40 feet between her cruiser and the front of the garage.

1

 The 

trooper testified that Maxon, who looked scared, leaned out of a door to the home and indicated 

that defendant was in the garage.2 The garage had one large door for the left bay, as viewed from 

the perspective of the driveway, along with, it appears, a couple of slightly smaller doors for the 

right bay area. These garage doors were closed when Trooper Moryc first arrived at the residence. 

The cruiser’s spotlight and headlights were aimed at the front of the garage, and, using the cruiser’s 

microphoned loudspeaker, the trooper, who had called for backup, told defendant to come out of 

the garage with his hands up. Defendant did not respond, so Trooper Moryc put her vehicle into 

reverse and backed up a short distance while still remaining in the driveway. She testified that she 

then planned to wait for backup to arrive, but suddenly the large garage door to the left bay opened 

up, and defendant was standing there. Based on the video footage, which had a time marker, 

approximately thirty-eight seconds elapsed between Trooper Moryc’s command directing 

defendant to come out of the garage and the point when defendant opened the garage door and 

actually appeared.

Trooper Moryc observed that defendant held a dangling silvery object in one hand. Using 

the cruiser’s microphone, the trooper ordered defendant to drop the object, and he immediately 

placed the object on the ground. Trooper Moryc exited her cruiser, stood behind the A-pillar of 

the partly-open driver’s side door, drew her gun, and commanded defendant to turn around and 

walk backward towards her with his hands up.

3

 Defendant responded he would not leave the 

garage because it was too cold. More specifically, according to the trooper, defendant stated, 

“ ‘No. It’s cold outside.’ ” Trooper Moryc again commanded defendant to turn around and walk 

backward toward her position, and he again expressed that he would not do so because it was cold 

outside.

4

 The trooper yelled that she did not care and ordered him to comply. Both of the 

commands for defendant to turn around and walk backward were communicated to him through 

use of the cruiser’s microphone and loudspeaker system.

After his refusals to comply, defendant suddenly started moving face forward toward 

Trooper Moryc. His arms were swinging freely by his side. Defendant moved at a brisk pace, not 

quite running but also not just walking at normal speed. The trooper testified that it appeared that 

defendant’s fists were partially clenched and that he kept moving toward her despite her commands 

 

1 We are estimating the distance on the basis of the video. There was no testimony directly stating

the distance in units of measurement although Trooper Moryc did indicate that the distance was 

roughly the length of the courtroom.

2 The audio from the dashcam video reflected that Trooper Moryc asked Maxon where defendant 

was located and that Maxon stated that defendant was in the garage.

3 The trooper explained that, for her protection, she did not want defendant facing her when he 

moved, otherwise he would have a direct line of sight and could pose a danger to her safety.

4 The trooper testified that defendant twice explicitly stated that he would not move or leave the 

garage because of the cold. The dashcam video corroborates Trooper Moryc’s assertions regarding 

her commands to defendant and that defendant responded; however, we cannot discern from the 

audio what exactly defendant stated, but he did not move.
-3-

for defendant to stop. In our review of the video, however, it took a moment for Trooper Moryc,

who was speaking on her radio at the time, to direct defendant to stop moving. Defendant 

immediately stopped when she first yelled at him, telling defendant to turn around and kneel on 

the ground. From this stage forward, Trooper Moryc was yelling her commands and no longer 

using the microphone.

Trooper Moryc testified, and the video footage depicted, that defendant stopped when he 

was about 10 to 15 feet away from her cruiser. As noted, the trooper commanded defendant to 

turn around and get down and kneel on the ground. The trooper testified that she also told 

defendant at that point to place his hands behind his head, but the audio from the video footage did

not disclose such a command. Trooper Moryc testified that defendant did not put his hands behind 

his head; he kept moving them, but he did turn around and kneel on the ground. The trooper then 

told defendant to put his hands up. Defendant, however, stood up, even though he was not 

instructed to do so.5 The trooper proceeded to yell at defendant to get back on the ground and 

place his hands behind his head; defendant complied. Police backup then arrived, and defendant 

was handcuffed and taken into custody.

Defendant was given his Miranda rights and interviewed at the scene. Trooper Moryc 

testified that defendant was angry and that she detected the odor of intoxicants on his person. 

Defendant acknowledged that he had been drinking. The trooper indicated that while the object 

that defendant held in his hand and dropped was never specifically identified, it was not a gun or 

a knife. Defendant told her that it was a “tool.” Defendant was found with a folding pocket knife

in a pants’ pocket.

Trooper Moryc testified that it was extremely windy, very cold, snowy, and icy that night. 

She described the driveway, which was fairly flat, as very icy. Trooper Moryc also stated that as 

the events of that evening transpired, she could hear defendant when he spoke despite the strong 

winds, including when he indicated that he would not comply with her order to exit the garage. 

The trooper further testified that her commands were communicated in a clear manner.

Maxon, the only witness to testify at trial aside from Trooper Moryc, indicated that she and 

defendant had four children together, two of whom, a son and a daughter, were at the home on the 

night of the incident. Maxon was called as a witness by the prosecution, and the prosecutor was 

permitted to ask leading questions after the court found that Maxon was a hostile witness. Her 

testimony was combative. Maxon did testify that she and defendant argued on the evening of 

February 7, 2019, as did defendant and their son. The domestic violence charge was based on an 

alleged altercation between the son and defendant. Maxon testified that while defendant was tense 

that evening, he was not aggressive, was not acting in a “different” manner, and did not physically 

 

5 On appeal, defendant claims that he thought that Trooper Moryc told him to stand up, not to put 

his hands up. The video footage could be interpreted as supporting that possibility, but defendant 

never testified, nor did the video record him saying that he misunderstood. Consequently, there is

no evidence in the record regarding what defendant thought or believed that he heard. Trooper 

Moryc testified on cross-examination that it is possible that defendant may have thought that she

said “stand up,” as opposed to “put your hands up.” Again, the trooper was now yelling her

commands and not using her microphone.
-4-

assault anyone. She admitted that she had been drinking at the time and was struggling to deal 

with their autistic daughter. Maxon explained that there had been a power outage caused by the 

weather conditions and that defendant went outside to work on their generator not long before 

Trooper Moryc arrived. According to Maxon, defendant also agreed to go outside to avoid further 

argument with their son. Maxon claimed that she did not recall telling Trooper Moryc that Maxon 

made defendant leave the house because he was being aggressive. Maxon did not remember 

making several statements that the trooper had attributed to Maxon.

Because the son did not appear at trial, the prosecutor decided to dismiss the charge of 

domestic violence. We will discuss below the conversations by the parties and the trial court 

regarding the admission of evidence concerning the domestic violence and defendant’s demeanor 

and conduct before the trooper arrived. At the conclusion of the prosecution’s proofs, defense 

counsel informed the trial court that defendant was choosing not to testify. Counsel indicated that 

she had discussed with defendant his absolute constitutional right not to testify as well as his right 

to testify if he so chose. Defendant himself confirmed to the court that he had decided not to testify 

upon consultation with his attorney. With respect to the charge of resisting and obstructing an 

officer (R&O), the trial court instructed the jury on the elements of the offense as follows:

First, that the Defendant assaulted, battered, wounded, resisted, obstructed, 

opposed, or endangered Trooper Moryc, who was also a police officer. Obstruct 

includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing 

failure to comply with a lawful command. The Defendant must have actually 

resisted by what he said or did, but physical violence is not necessary. Second, that 

the Defendant knew or had reason to know that Trooper Moryc was a police officer 

performing her duties at the time. Third, that Trooper Moryc gave the Defendant a 

lawful command, was making a lawful arrest, or was otherwise performing a lawful 

act.

This instruction was consistent with M Crim JI 13.1. The jury found defendant guilty of 

R&O, and he was sentenced to nine months in jail and three years’ probation. Defendant now 

appeals by right. After filing the claim of appeal, defendant moved for remand in this Court, 

seeking an evidentiary hearing and arguing that “remand is necessary to develop the factual record 

necessary for appellate review of whether defense counsel deprived [defendant] of his 

constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel by coercing him to waive his right to 

testify.” This Court denied the motion “without prejudice to a case call panel . . . determining that 

remand is necessary once the case is submitted on a session calendar.” People v Haller, 

unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 20, 2020 (Docket No. 350590).

II. ANALYSIS

A. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Defendant first argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for 

R&O. Defendant, citing MCL 750.81d(7)(a), contends that obstruction entails the use or 

threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with an officer’s 

lawful command. Defendant maintains that the evidence was insufficient to establish obstruction 

because the dashcam video from the police cruiser showed that defendant complied with each and 
-5-

every reasonable command immediately or within moments. With respect to defendant’s walking 

face forward instead of backward down the driveway, defendant asserts that he “walked forward 

only after seeking clarification or explaining his concern about walking backwards down an icy 

driveway.” Defendant states that while the command to walk backward down the driveway was 

lawful, it was not a reasonable command because it placed defendant in jeopardy or risk of severe 

injury. With regard to standing up from the kneeling position that he had assumed after first 

moving forward, defendant claims that he simply misunderstood the trooper’s command, thinking 

that she directed him to stand up, not put his hands up. Every other command given by the trooper

was, according to defendant, complied with in full. Defendant also complains that the trooper 

overreacted to a situation that she herself created by not waiting for backup and that she did not 

attempt to discern a reasonable way to address the situation.

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo the issue regarding whether there was sufficient evidence to support a 

conviction. People v Mikulen, 324 Mich App 14, 20; 919 NW2d 454 (2018).

2. GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

 In Mikulen, id., this Court recited the well-established principles that govern a claim that 

there was insufficient evidence to sustain a verdict:

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must view the 

evidence—whether direct or circumstantial—in a light most favorable to the 

prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the 

essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury, and 

not an appellate court, observes the witnesses and listens to their testimony; 

therefore, an appellate court must not interfere with the jury’s role in assessing the 

weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. Circumstantial evidence 

and the reasonable inferences that arise from such evidence can constitute 

satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime. The prosecution need not negate every 

reasonable theory of innocence; instead, it need only prove the elements of the 

crime in the face of whatever contradictory evidence is provided by the defendant. 

We resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prosecution. [Citations 

omitted.]

3. DISCUSSION

MCL 750.81d(1) provides that “an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, 

obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is 

performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 

years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.” MCL 750.81d(7)(a) defines the term 

“obstruct” as including “the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing 

failure to comply with a lawful command.” To “resist” means to strive against, oppose, or to 

withstand, and “resistance” entails opposition offered by some mechanism. People v Morris, 314 

Mich App 399, 408-409; 886 NW2d 910 (2016). The Morris panel also observed:
-6-

[T]o convict defendant [under MCL 750.81d(1),] it was not necessary for 

the jury to find that defendant actually ran away from the officers or physically 

assaulted them. All that was necessary was to find that he was taking the requisite 

physical action to prevent a police officer from performing his lawful duties. 

Additionally, the duration of the resistance or the mental state of defendant at the 

time is of no import, as resistance can occur in even the briefest of moments, and 

the statute does not require that defendant be found to be free of any mitigating 

motivation. [Morris, 314 Mich App at 414-415.]

A defendant must actually resist by what he or she said or did, but physical violence is not required. 

M Crim JI 13.1; People v Quinn, 305 Mich App 484, 494; 853 NW2d 383 (2014).

We first note that defendant’s argument focuses on “obstruction” absent any real discussion 

of “resistance” or “opposition,” even though the jury may very well have convicted defendant for 

resisting or opposing Trooper Moryc. See MCL 750.81d(1); M Crim JI 13.1. Using the cruiser’s 

loudspeaker, Trooper Moryc ordered defendant to come out of the garage with his hands up, yet 

defendant failed to appear for 38 seconds. This delay in responding could reasonably be construed 

as resisting or opposing a police officer’s lawful command or, as to obstruction, a knowing failure 

to comply with a lawful command. Contrary to defendant’s suggestion, he did not comply within 

“moments.”

Additionally, when defendant finally opened the garage door, he was twice commanded to 

turn around and walk backward toward Trooper Moryc. But he expressly refused to comply with 

both directives because it was cold outside. This, however, was no excuse for failing to comply 

with the trooper’s lawful commands, and defendant does not provide any authority to the contrary. 

Expressly telling the officer that he would not exit the garage and his accompanying failure to 

move in the manner directed constituted evidence showing that defendant resisted and opposed the 

trooper and that he failed to comply with lawful commands. Defendant now argues, referring to 

an averment in his affidavit attached to his motion for remand, that the commands were

unreasonable because walking backward on the icy driveway posed a danger of slipping and 

falling.

6

 We initially note that the focus is on the lawfulness of the command and not on its 

reasonableness.

7

 See MCL 750.81d(7)(a). Also, the self-serving affidavit is not part of the lower 

court record. See People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 38; 755 NW2d 212 (2008) (“we decline to 

consider the affidavits submitted with defendant’s motion for remand”). Furthermore, the 

evidence established that defendant’s expressed yet dubious reason for not complying with the 

trooper’s two commands was that it was cold outside. Defendant said nothing about the icy 

driveway. Defendant is effectively attempting to testify through his affidavit without being judged 

by a jury and without being subjected to cross-examination by a prosecutor. This we will not 

 

6 Defendant asserted in his affidavit that “[t]he drive was covered with ice and slanted down toward 

the officer who was giving me commands to walk backwards and I was concerned that I would 

fall if I did[.]”

7 We recognize that a command can be dangerously unreasonable, but in that case the command 

would effectively be unlawful. An officer cannot demand that a suspect walk over a 100-foot 

cliff—that would be an unlawful command. Here, the command was not unlawful.
-7-

allow. Defendant’s refusal to comply with Trooper Moryc’s two lawful commands to walk 

backward toward her position with his hands up supported a finding that defendant resisted, 

opposed, and obstructed the trooper.

Additionally, defendant’s actions in moving forward from the garage and heading toward 

Trooper Moryc face first at a brisk pace was in direct contravention of the trooper’s command to 

walk backward; she never told defendant to proceed as he did. Defendant’s conduct again 

demonstrated resistance, opposition, and obstruction, as well as showing that he was not afraid of 

falling on ice. Next, after defendant knelt on the ground and was told to put his hands up, he 

instead stood up. This action represented yet another example of defendant failing to comply with 

a lawful command. Defendant claims that he misunderstood Trooper Moryc, believing that she 

directed him to stand up, as opposed to ordering him to put his hands up. Other than the mere fact 

that defendant stood up as soon as the trooper told him to put his hands up, there is nothing in the 

record that supports defendant’s contention. And it was for the jury to assess the weight of the 

evidence and resolve conflicts in the evidence. In his affidavit attached to the motion for remand, 

defendant averred that he “misunderstood the officer’s command ‘hands up’ as ‘stand up[.]’ ” 

Reliance on the affidavit is erroneous for the reasons already discussed above. Moreover, even if 

this conduct is not considered, there was still abundant evidence to support the R&O conviction.

Defendant also complains that the trooper overreacted to a situation that she herself created 

by not waiting for backup and that she did not attempt to find a reasonable way to address the 

situation. These arguments lack merit and are irrelevant with respect to whether defendant resisted, 

opposed, or obstructed Trooper Moryc. Neither of defendant’s claims rendered the trooper’s 

commands unlawful or provided a legal excuse for defendant’s failure to comply with Trooper 

Moryc’s commands.

In sum, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, appreciating that 

issues concerning the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses were for the jury 

to assess and resolve, and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prosecution, we

hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for R&O.

B. ALLEGED EVIDENTIARY ERROR

Defendant next argues that given that the charge of domestic violence was dismissed, the 

trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the prosecution to elicit testimony regarding 

defendant’s demeanor and behavior before Trooper Moryc arrived at the home on the night at 

issue. Defendant contends that the examination and evidence were unduly prejudicial and that the 

error was not harmless. Defendant contends that the trial court limited the testimony regarding 

domestic violence to the information that the trooper received from dispatch, yet the prosecutor 

elicited testimony from Shawn Maxon that went far beyond the court’s limitation, including 

testimony with regard to whether defendant was extremely aggressive. Relying on MRE 403, 

defendant argues that the probative value of Maxon’s testimony was minimal at best and that the 

minimal probative value of the testimony was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair 

prejudice.
-8-

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision to admit evidence. People v 

Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 488; 596 NW2d 607 (1999). “When the decision regarding the admission 

of evidence involves a preliminary question of law, such as whether a statute or rule of evidence 

precludes admissibility of the evidence, the issue is reviewed de novo.” People v Washington, 468 

Mich 667, 670-671; 664 NW2d 203 (2003). A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it 

makes an error of law. People v Duncan, 494 Mich 713, 723; 835 NW2d 399 (2013).

2. GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially 

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or 

by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” 

MRE 403. In People v Crawford, 325 Mich App 14, 29-30; 923 NW2d 296 (2018), vacated in 

part on other grounds by 503 Mich 990 (2019), this Court discussed the parameters of MRE 403, 

explaining:

MRE 403 does not prohibit prejudicial evidence; only evidence that is 

unfairly so. And evidence is unfairly prejudicial when there exists a danger that 

marginally probative evidence will be given undue or preemptive weight by the 

jury. In other words, where a probability exists that evidence which is minimally 

damaging in logic will be weighed by the jurors substantially out of proportion to 

its logically damaging effect, a situation arises in which the danger of prejudice 

exists. All evidence offered by the parties is prejudicial to some extent, but the fear 

of prejudice does not generally render the evidence inadmissible. Unfairness might 

arise when the . . . evidence injects considerations extraneous to the merits of a 

case, e.g., a jury’s bias, shock, sympathy, or anger. Unfairness might not exist 

where the critical evidence supporting a party’s position on a key issue raises the 

danger of prejudice within the meaning of MRE 403 but the proponent of this 

evidence has no less prejudicial means by which the substance of this evidence can 

be admitted. The prosecution may offer all relevant evidence, subject to MRE 403, 

on every element of an offense, given that the elements of an offense are always at 

issue. [Quotation marks, citations, ellipses, and alteration brackets omitted.]

3. DISCUSSION

As noted earlier, the prosecutor did not pursue the charge of domestic violence because 

defendant’s son—the alleged victim of the violence—did not appear at trial to testify. Maxon was 

also being defiant. Before Trooper Moryc’s testimony, the parties and the trial court, outside the 

presence of the jury, discussed how to handle the facts associated with the charge of domestic 

violence now that the charge was being dismissed. The court decided that it would allow the 

prosecution to introduce testimony that Trooper Moryc was responding to a domestic violence call 

that involved an altercation and a knife. The court also added that the trooper could “testify to the 

information she received in the dispatch.” The trial court made these rulings on the premise that 

the reasons why the trooper went to the home were relevant to her actions and conduct in 

confronting defendant, thereby giving context to the situation.
-9-

Defendant’s argument is focused on Maxon’s testimony that was elicited by the prosecutor, 

which defendant contends exceeded the limits placed by the trial court on the evidence concerning 

domestic violence. Defendant quotes at length Maxon’s testimony, emphasizing the questions 

posed by the prosecutor on direct examination that defendant deems improper. These questions

pertained to the timeframe just before Trooper Moryc’s arrival. They concerned whether the home 

environment was good, whether there was some arguing going on, whether defendant was acting 

differently when he returned home from work, whether defendant was tense, whether defendant 

was aggressive, and whether defendant was extremely aggressive. Maxon agreed that there were 

arguments and that everyone was tense, but she denied that defendant was “different” that night, 

denied that he was extremely aggressive, and denied that he was aggressive to any degree. Maxon 

also did not recall or remember telling Trooper Moryc that defendant was acting differently, that 

he was aggressive, or that he was extremely aggressive.

Defendant apparently has no objection to the testimony that the trooper was responding to 

a call that concerned domestic violence involving defendant’s wielding a knife. We thus fail to 

see how the questions and responses being challenged would have had any prejudicial effect that 

went beyond the impact of the jury’s hearing that Trooper Moryc was responding to a domestic 

violence call entailing an assault by defendant using a knife. See MCL 769.26 (reversal is only 

warranted when an error results in a miscarriage of justice); Lukity, 460 Mich at 495 (“In other 

words, the effect of the error is evaluated by assessing it in the context of the untainted evidence 

to determine whether it is more probable than not that a different outcome would have resulted 

without the error.”). Adding further support for this conclusion is the fact that the evidence 

presented at trial overwhelmingly established that defendant resisted, opposed, and obstructed 

Trooper Moryc. Moreover, Maxon did not even concede that defendant was being aggressive or 

overly aggressive or acting differently; she denied the assertions. Indeed, considering her 

testimony, it may have, if anything, tempered the evidence that the trooper was responding to a 

claim of domestic violence involving defendant’s use of a knife.

Additionally, we cannot even conclude that the prosecutor’s questions and the elicited 

testimony necessarily exceeded the boundaries set by the trial court, which would explain why 

defense counsel did not object during the prosecutor’s examination of Maxon. Nevertheless, 

assuming that the probative value of the challenged testimony was substantially outweighed by 

the danger of unfair prejudice and that the court abused its discretion by allowing the testimony, 

we hold that the presumed error was harmless and did not prejudice defendant for the reasons 

discussed above.

8

C. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Defendant claims that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because she encouraged 

or coerced him not to testify at trial, which prejudiced defendant, as there is a reasonable 

probability that his testimony would have changed the outcome of the proceedings. In defendant’s 

affidavit attached to his motion for remand, he averred that his attorney persuaded him “not to 

 

8 To the extent that the alleged error was not encompassed by defense counsel’s objection below 

relative to domestic violence and thus unpreserved, the presumed error did not affect defendant’s 

substantial rights. Carines, 460 Mich at 763-764.
-10-

testify with vague statements to the effect that the prosecution would ‘tear me apart’ and [that] the 

prosecutor had ‘his ways of making me look bad.’ ” Defendant further asserted, “These vague 

statements frightened me and coerced me into not testifying, even though it was my desire to 

tesitfy.” Defendant claims that had he taken the stand, he would have testified that he was 

concerned and worried about falling had he walked backward on the icy driveway, that his hands 

were not clenched when he approached Trooper Moryc, that he misunderstood the trooper’s 

command to put his hands up, believing that she told him to stand up, and that he did everything 

he could do to comply with the trooper’s commands throughout the encounter.

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Whether counsel was ineffective presents a mixed question of fact and constitutional law, 

and factual findings are reviewed for clear error, whereas questions of law are reviewed de novo. 

People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 579; 640 NW2d 246 (2002).

2. GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

In People v Carbin, 463 Mich 590, 599-600; 623 NW2d 884 (2001), the Michigan Supreme 

Court recited the principles that are applicable to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel:

To justify reversal under either the federal or state constitutions, a convicted 

defendant must satisfy [a] two-part test . . . . First, the defendant must show that 

counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made 

errors so serious that counsel was not performing as the counsel guaranteed by the 

Sixth Amendment. In so doing, the defendant must overcome a strong presumption 

that counsel’s performance constituted sound trial strategy. Second, the defendant 

must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. To demonstrate 

prejudice, the defendant must show the existence of a reasonable probability that, 

but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A 

reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the 

outcome. Because the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating both deficient 

performance and prejudice, the defendant necessarily bears the burden of 

establishing the factual predicate for his claim. [Quotation marks and citations 

omitted.]

An attorney’s performance is deficient if the representation falls below an objective standard of 

reasonableness. People v Toma, 462 Mich 281, 302; 613 NW2d 694 (2000).

3. DISCUSSION

“The decision to call or not call the defendant to testify is a matter of trial strategy.” People 

v Alderete, 132 Mich App 351, 360; 347 NW2d 229 (1984). “A defendant’s right to testify in his 

own defense arises from the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 

Constitution[,] [and] [a]lthough counsel must advise a defendant of this right, the ultimate decision 

whether to testify at trial remains with the defendant.” People v Bonilla-Machado, 489 Mich 412, 

419; 803 NW2d 217 (2011). We acknowledge that a criminal defense attorney may be ineffective 

when he prevents his or her client from testifying against the client’s wishes. See, e.g., Nichols v 

Butler, 953 F2d 1550, 1552-1553 (CA 11, 1992). A criminal defense attorney must “abide by the 
-11-

client’s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, with respect to . . . whether the client will 

testify.” MRPC 1.2(a). A criminal defense attorney is presumed to follow the rules of professional 

conduct when advising his or her client concerning the decision whether to testify at trial. United 

States v Webber, 208 F3d 545, 551 (CA 6, 2000). This Court has held that “[i]f the accused 

expresses a wish to testify at trial, the trial court must grant the request, even over counsel’s 

objection.” People v Simmons, 140 Mich App 681, 685; 364 NW2d 783 (1985). But if a criminal 

defendant “acquiesces in his attorney’s decision that he not testify, the right will be deemed 

waived.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

As we discussed earlier, at the conclusion of the prosecution’s proofs, defense counsel 

informed the trial court that defendant was choosing not to testify. Counsel indicated that she had 

discussed with defendant his absolute constitutional right not to testify as well as his right to testify 

if he so chose. Defendant himself confirmed to the court that he had decided not to testify upon 

consultation with his attorney. Defendant now claims that his trial attorney essentially scared him 

into exercising his constitutional right not to testify. Defendant waived his right to testify, and we 

are not prepared to allow him to overcome that waiver with his self-serving affidavit calling into 

question the voluntariness of his decision not to testify. Moreover, assuming that it is proper to 

consider defendant’s affidavit and that the averments are true, we cannot conclude that defense 

counsel was ineffective for advising defendant that the prosecutor could potentially decimate him 

or eviscerate his testimony on cross-examination. This is especially true in this case considering 

the evidentiary ammunition at the prosecutor’s disposal to employ on cross-examination, i.e., the 

dashcam video footage that plainly demonstrated that defendant committed the offense of R&O 

and that undermine defendant’s averments regarding his proposed testimony. Defendant has not 

established deficient performance by counsel. Reversal is unwarranted.

III. CONCLUSION

The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction of R&O. Further, 

the testimony by Maxon that defendant challenged was harmless and did not prejudice defendant, 

even assuming that it was inadmissible and should not have been elicited by the prosecutor. 

Finally, defendant’s trial attorney was not ineffective with respect to defendant’s decision not to 

testify after consultation with counsel.

We affirm.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

/s/ Jane E. Markey

/s/ Jonathan Tukel