People of Michigan v. Shawn Christopher Kreager
332120
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 9, 2017Background
- Defendant Shawn Kreager was convicted by a jury of three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving his nine-year-old daughter, HK. Two incidents occurred during one overnight parenting time; a third involved earlier touching.
- HK and her mother testified to the incidents; defense presented girlfriend Amy Richards as an alibi/character witness and defendant testified.
- Voir dire: the trial judge questioned the venire, excused several jurors for cause and allowed peremptory strikes; defense argues the court failed to repeatedly ask whether parties wished to challenge replacements for cause.
- Post-trial, defendant moved for a Ginther hearing alleging ineffective assistance of appointed counsel based on inadequate investigation, failure to file an alibi notice, poor witness preparation, failure to impeach the mother, not pursuing expert testimony, and not requesting a polygraph.
- The trial court held a Ginther hearing, credited counsel’s testimony about preparation, and denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voir dire procedure violated right to impartial jury | State: court complied with MCR 6.412 by giving parties opportunities to challenge; no rule requires repeated inquiries after each replacement | Kreager: court should have asked after each juror replacement whether parties wished to challenge for cause | Court: no violation; rules require opportunity to raise challenges and court twice asked; no juror identified who should have been excused for cause and no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file/endorse an alibi notice | State: Richards testified as alibi despite no formal notice; prosecutor did not object and jury rejected her testimony | Kreager: counsel failed to preserve alibi defense procedurally, depriving him of instruction/strategy benefits | Court: even if deficient, no prejudice—alibi witness testified and jury rejected it |
| Whether counsel erred in advising defendant to testify | State: defendant personally chose to testify after the court admonished him; decision belongs to defendant | Kreager: counsel should have prevented inconsistent testimony and anticipated cross-examination about alcohol | Court: no relief—choice to testify was defendant’s, made after warning; not counsel’s fault |
| Whether counsel failed to investigate/call witnesses or use impeachment/expert/polygraph | State: counsel called key witnesses, interviewed others (some unfavorable), lacked admissible convictions to impeach mother, experts would be cumulative, polygraph is discretionary and would not compel dismissal | Kreager: counsel did insufficient investigation, failed to call character witnesses, failed to impeach mother, omitted expert and polygraph options | Court: strategic choices presumed reasonable; counsel not ineffective—no showing those steps would have produced a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Acorn Investment Co v Mich Basic Prop Ins Ass'n, 495 Mich. 338 (court-rule interpretation standard)
- In re KH, 469 Mich. 621 (court-rule/statute construction principles)
- Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich. 303 (plain-language rule interpretation)
- People v Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (Ginther hearing on ineffective assistance claims)
- Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard)
- People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (standard of review for mixed questions)
- Wiggins v Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (limits on duty to investigate)
- People v Grant, 470 Mich. 477 (investigation failure undermines confidence only if outcome affected)
- People v Phillips, 251 Mich. App. 100 (polygraph statute context)