Background
Randy Stoney Odem was convicted by a jury of assault by strangulation and domestic violence arising from a July 2023 altercation with his romantic partner. The complainant testified that Odem straddled and strangled her until she could not breathe, then pushed her into a wall and rendered her unconscious. Medical providers and police documented redness, inflammation, and other injuries to her neck and face. Odem denied strangling her and claimed that she lost consciousness while he was trying to remove her from his back.
The jury also heard testimony about four prior domestic-violence incidents involving Odem, three of which involved strangulation or choking. After sentencing Odem as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 114 months to 20 years for strangulation and 365 days for domestic violence, the trial court denied his motions for a new trial, a hearing on ineffective assistance, and correction of his sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. It held that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to investigate proposed witnesses, but Odem failed to establish prejudice. Their testimony about the complainant’s alleged recantation would have been cumulative of evidence already presented, while testimony about her conduct during earlier altercations did not address the charged incident or create a reasonable probability of a different verdict. The court also concluded that the strangulation verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence given the medical testimony, photographs, and other evidence of neck injuries.
The court further held that evidence of Odem’s prior domestic violence was admissible under MCL 768.27b and was not unfairly prejudicial under MRE 403. But it ruled that the trial court improperly scored offense variable 4 at 10 points because the complainant attributed her psychological harm to the relationship as a whole, not specifically to the July 2023 sentencing offense. Removing those points lowered the applicable guidelines range, requiring the court to vacate Odem’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- A lawyer’s failure to investigate potential witnesses may constitute deficient performance, but relief still requires a reasonable probability that the omitted evidence would have changed the outcome.
- Michigan law permits relevant prior acts of domestic violence, including propensity evidence, subject to MRE 403.
- Psychological injury scored under OV 4 must be tied to the specific sentencing offense rather than a broader course of conduct or relationship.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between deficient representation and constitutionally prejudicial representation: even an inadequate witness investigation will not warrant a new trial when the proposed testimony is cumulative or does not materially answer the prosecution’s evidence.
For sentencing practitioners, the opinion emphasizes that offense-variable scoring must remain offense-specific. General psychological harm from a prolonged abusive relationship cannot support OV 4 without evidence connecting the serious injury to the particular offense for which the defendant is being sentenced.