People of Michigan v. Brandon Bethel-Alan Ratcliff, 326809

April 9, 2014: Erica Frady was attacked in a restaurant parking lot, struck with a metal object, dragged from her car, and her 2014 Chevy Cruze was stolen; she identified Brandon Ratcliff (defendant) at an in-person lineup and at trial.
Surveillance video showed defendant walking toward the lot with a metal object and later showed the victim on the ground; the video did not capture the actual strike due to camera angle.
Police located the stolen Cruze about an hour later; officer Bazzi saw defendant exit the vehicle and flee; defendant was apprehended nearby; Frady’s sweatshirt and credit card were recovered in a backyard between the vehicle and where defendant was detained.
DNA testing matched defendant to DNA on the metal object (extremely high probability), and DNA consistent with defendant was found on the steering wheel; cell‑phone records were inconclusive for the time of the offense.
At trial defendant was convicted of carjacking, armed robbery, and unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle; he appealed, arguing prosecutorial error in closing and rebuttal, ineffective assistance for failure to object, and that OV 10 was improperly scored.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial error: facts not in evidence and vouching	Prosecutor’s comments were reasonable inferences and responses to defense challenges; any isolated misstatements were harmless.	Prosecutor misstated facts (e.g., "sweating like crazy") and vouched for police, warranting reversal.	No reversible error: remarks either reasonably inferred, collateral, responsive to defense, or harmless; jury instructions and strength of evidence negate prejudice.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object	Defense counsel reasonably declined to object as part of trial strategy; raising futile objections is not ineffective.	Counsel should have objected and asked for curative instruction; failure prejudiced outcome.	No deficient performance or prejudice shown on the record; strategy to avoid highlighting remarks reasonable; outcome not likely different.
Scoring OV 10 (predatory conduct)	15 points appropriate because surveillance showed preoffense conduct: scouting, acquiring a weapon, testing it, then targeting victim.	Defendant argued record lacked predatory conduct to justify maximum OV 10 score.	15 points for OV 10 affirmed: preoffense conduct and exploitation of a vulnerable victim supported scoring.

Unger v. People, 278 Mich. App. 210 (prosecutor latitude; strategy may counsel against objections)
Callon v. People, 256 Mich. App. 312 (improper remarks may be cured if responsive to defense; review for plain error)
Watson v. People, 245 Mich. App. 572 (prosecutor may argue reasonable inferences but not facts unsupported by evidence)
Bahoda v. People, 448 Mich. 261 (prohibition on prosecutor vouching for witness credibility)
Bennett v. People, 290 Mich. App. 465 (vouching and limits on prosecutor commentary)
Huston v. People, 489 Mich. 451 (OV 10: predatory conduct and statutory definition of vulnerability)
Vaughn v. People, 491 Mich. 642 (standard for ineffective-assistance analysis)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Graves v. People, 458 Mich. 476 (jurors presumed to follow instructions)