Admission of the victim’s preliminary exam testimony; The Confrontation Clause; Crawford v Washington; People v Jemison; Unavailable witness; MRE 804(a)(4); Remote preliminary exam testimony during the COVID-19 pandemic; MCR 6.006(B) MCL 766.11a; Administrative Order (AO) No. 2020-6; Exclusion of defendant’s proposed other acts evidence; Relevance; Right to present a defense; Testimony that defendant tried to flee or resisted arrest; MRE 404(b); People v Coleman; MRE 403

The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the victim’s (G) preliminary exam testimony at trial where she was unavailable under MRE 804(a)(4). Further, under the circumstances, the district court did not err in allowing G to testify remotely at the preliminary exam. In addition, the trial court did not err in excluding defendant’s proposed other acts evidence about embezzlement allegations against G’s brother (GG) as irrelevant, and doing so did not violate defendant’s right to present a defense. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting testimony that defendant tried to flee or resisted arrest. Thus, the court affirmed her convictions of embezzlement of a vulnerable adult in the amount of $50,000 or more but less than $100,000, embezzlement of a vulnerable adult in the amount of $1,000 or more but less than $20,000, using a computer to commit a crime, retaining a financial transaction device without consent, and failing to file tax returns. Defendant contended she was unable to properly cross-examine G at the preliminary exam because G “appeared via remote videoconferencing software.” But the record showed “defense counsel cross-examined [G] over a period spanning two days. Defense counsel asked [G] to review copies of a series of cashed checks from her personal banking account and to determine whether she had authorized payment of those funds. At trial, jury members were given copies of the exhibits so that they could follow along with” G’s testimony. Defendant failed to explain “what additional questions or topics she wanted to raise with [G] that were not addressed at the preliminary” exam. The court found that the record supported “the conclusion that [G] was subject to full cross-examination.” As to allowing her to testify at the preliminary exam remotely, AO No. 2020-6 and MCR 6.006 permitted the video testimony. As to the exclusion of defendant’s proposed evidence about GG, the fact he “may have taken money from the box after he obtained access to it would not make it more or less probable that defendant had previously taken money from the box, that she failed to put money into the box (as she claimed to have done), or that she wrongfully obtained money from [G] by other means.”