People of Michigan v. Walter Frank Steenbergh, 330071

Defendant Walter Frank Steenbergh was convicted by a jury of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct for repeated sexual assaults on his niece when she was 7–11 years old.
Victim testified defendant touched and licked her genitals and breasts and attempted other sexual acts; defendant denied the allegations; a cousin denied witnessing assaults.
At trial a nurse examiner testified regarding statements the victim made during a medical exam months after the last alleged assault.
Defense counsel did not retain an expert on forensic interviewing, memory reliability, or child suggestibility and did not object to the nurse’s testimony as hearsay.
Defendant appealed, arguing ineffective assistance for failure to retain an expert and that hearsay testimony was improperly admitted (and counsel ineffective for failing to object). The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to retain an expert on forensic interviewing, memory, and child suggestibility	Prosecution: trial was fair; defendant failed to show counsel’s failure deprived him of a substantial defense	Steenbergh: counsel’s failure to retain/advice from an expert was deficient and prejudicial; would have provided a substantial defense	Affirmed: claim not preserved with supporting facts; defendant failed to show retention would have produced favorable evidence or that outcome would differ; no “battle of experts” and case was credibility-driven
Whether nurse-examiner’s testimony about victim statements was inadmissible hearsay and whether counsel erred in not objecting	Prosecution: statements fell under MRE 803(4) as statements for medical diagnosis/treatment; admissible; counsel not ineffective for failing to make a futile objection	Steenbergh: statements were not made for treatment (exam occurred months later) and weren’t necessary for diagnosis/treatment	Affirmed: statements properly admitted under MRE 803(4) in sexual-assault context; no plain error; counsel not ineffective for failing to make a futile objection

People v Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (opinion citing right to counsel standard)
People v Heft, 299 Mich. App. 69 (standard for appellate review of ineffective-assistance claims)
People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich. 575 (mixed question of fact and law for ineffective-assistance claims)
People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
People v Seals, 285 Mich. App. 1 (witness selection as trial strategy)
People v Payne, 285 Mich. App. 181 (failure to call witness may amount to ineffective assistance if a substantial defense is lost)
People v Kelly, 186 Mich. App. 524 (definition of substantial defense)
People v Ackerman, 257 Mich. App. 434 (defendant must show retained expert would have provided favorable evidence)
People v Ackley, 497 Mich. 381 (expert testimony central to prosecution’s case; distinguished)
People v Mahone, 294 Mich. App. 208 (statements in sexual-assault cases may be for medical treatment even without apparent physical injury)
People v Meeboer, 439 Mich. 310 (rationale for MRE 803(4): truth-telling motivation and necessity for diagnosis/treatment)
People v Brown, 279 Mich. App. 116 (plain-error review of unpreserved evidentiary claims)
People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (three-part plain-error test)
People v Goodin, 257 Mich. App. 425 (counsel not ineffective for failing to make futile objections)