Discovery in criminal cases; MCR 6.201; People v. Greenfield (On Reconsideration); People v. Phillips; Exculpatory evidence; Brady v. Maryland; People v. Chenault; People v. Schumacher; “Materiality”; United States v. Bagley; United States v. Agurs; Qualification of an expert; MCR 6.201(A)(3); Relevance & admissibility of evidence; MRE 401, 402, & 403; Due process; Right to present a defense; U.S. Const. amend. VI; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 13; People v. Kurr; People v. Unger; People v. Toma; Chambers v. Mississippi; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v. Watson; “Durable power of attorney” defined; MCL 700.5501(1); Appointment of a guardian; MCL 700.5303; Sentencing; Guidelines departure; MCL 769.34(3); Judicial fact-finding; People v. Lockridge; United States v. Crosby (2d Cir.); People v. Shank; Proportionality; People v. Steanhouse; People v. Milbourn

The court held that the prosecution did not commit misconduct or fail to produce exculpatory evidence, that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony or excluding evidence, and that the defendant was not denied her right to present a defense. However, it questioned the reasonableness of the trial court’s sentencing departure as to her conducting a criminal enterprise conviction. Thus, it affirmed her convictions and sentences for false pretenses and embezzlement, but remanded for further proceedings as to the reasonableness of her departure sentence for the conducting a criminal enterprise conviction. She was convicted of conducting a criminal enterprise, seven counts of obtaining money by false pretenses in an amount of $1,000 or more but less than $20,000, and embezzlement of a vulnerable adult in an amount of $50,000 or more but less than $100,000. The trial court sentenced her to concurrent prison terms of 140 months to 20 years for the criminal enterprise conviction, 23 months to 5 years for each false pretenses conviction, and 71 months to 15 years for the embezzlement conviction. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that she was entitled to a new trial because the prosecution failed to produce exculpatory evidence. “Because defendant’s mere contention that the requested materials might have contained favorable evidence is insufficient to establish that the evidence she sought was material, defendant has not established a Brady violation.” It also rejected her claim that the prosecution’s expert, S, an attorney and expert in the area of securities law, should not have been allowed to testify because the prosecution’s pretrial summary of his proposed testimony was insufficient to meet the requirements of MCR 6.201(A)(3). It found that “[t]he written summary sets out the substance of [S’s] testimony, his opinion, and the bases for that opinion.” The court next rejected her argument that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to admit the entirety of her 75-minute recorded interview with state investigators, concluding that the “trial court’s MRE 403 concerns were legitimate.” Further, she was not denied her right to present a defense. The court also rejected her contention that the prosecution committed misconduct, noting the prosecution did not misrepresent an elderly victim’s relative’s legal status or authority in its remarks, and there was no plain error as to the relative’s testimony.