Admissibility of the victim’s out-of-court statements; Statements made for purposes of medical treatment or diagnosis (MRE 803(4)); Present sense impressions (MRE 803(1)); Excited utterances (MRE 803(2)); Right of confrontation; Whether statements to a police officer were testimonial; Prejudice; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); Harmless error; MCL 769.26; Sufficiency of the evidence; Torture; Unlawful imprisonment; Possession of less than 50 grams of a controlled substance; Felonious assault; FIP; Witness intimidation; Felony-firearm (second offense); Missing witness jury instruction; Due diligence; Emergency medical technician (EMT)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the victim’s (D) out-of-court statements to neighbors and an EMT under MRE 803(4), (1), and (2). While D’s statements to an officer (R) were testimonial and their admission violated defendant’s right of confrontation, he failed to show prejudice as required under plain error review. He also did not establish his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and the court found that an error in admitting other acts evidence was harmless. It further held that there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions of torture, unlawful imprisonment, possession of less than 50 grams of a controlled substance, felonious assault, FIP, witness intimidation, and felony-firearm (second offense). Lastly, it found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a missing-witness instruction. The case arose from D’s being held captive in the basement of a house. Defendant first challenged the admission of D’s statements to an EMT who arrived on the scene. In the process of the EMT administering medical aid, D “described his injuries and how they occurred. His statements explaining the origin of his injuries were reasonably necessary to a diagnosis of his condition and a determination of his need for medical treatment.” Thus, the statements in the EMT’s report fell “squarely within the scope of MRE 803(4)[.]” The court further held that D’s statements to two individuals in a nearby home “were admissible as present sense impressions and excited utterances.” As to R, to the extent he “provided testimony that referred to various statements made by the victim, it was not done with a primary purpose of establishing the truth of the statements. Moreover, the limited testimony was cumulative of properly admitted testimony from” the other witnesses. As to the other acts testimony, given “the weight and strength of the properly admitted evidence, defendant” did not show it was more probable than not that the trial’s outcome would have been different if it had not been admitted. The court also held that R’s efforts to locate D and another witness were reasonable given the information he had about them. “Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that [R] made reasonable, good-faith efforts to procure” their attendance at trial. Affirmed.