Claim that the trial court’s decision to permit the jury to see a transcript of the defendant’s police interview caused him prejudice because it convinced the jury to convict him of first-degree murder as opposed to second-degree murder; Houghton ex rel Johnson v. Keller; Claim that the transcript’s “inaccuracies” led the jury to convict him of first-degree murder instead of second-degree murder; Harmless error; People v. Lukity; People v. Gonzalez; People v. Kelly; Claim that the parties did not stipulate to the accuracy of a transcript; People v. Lester; Westland v. Kodlowski

The trial court’s decision to permit the jury to see a transcript of the defendant’s police interview did not cause him prejudice. Even if the court were to assume the transcript contained content that caused the jury to find defendant guilty of first-degree murder, as opposed to second-degree murder, the fact that the jury read the transcript would be harmless, because defendant failed to show that he would have been acquitted or convicted of a lesser crime had the transcript not been used. Also, although the parties did not stipulate to the accuracy of the transcript, the trial court “check[ed] the transcript against the tape, and found the transcript accurate.” He was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and mutilation of a dead body. He confessed that he “strangled his girlfriend to death, and then dismembered her body.” He confessed in an interview with police and in a written confession. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred when it provided the jury with a transcript of his police interview because “(1) the transcript contained unspecified errors that caused the jury to convict defendant for first-degree, instead of second-degree, murder; (2) the parties did not stipulate to the accuracy of the transcript.” The essence of his claim on appeal was “the trial court’s decision to permit the jury to see a transcript of his police interview caused him prejudice, because it convinced the jury to convict him of first-degree murder, as opposed to second-degree murder.” The court held that this claim, which was unsupported by law or evidence, had three flaws—(1) defendant did “not explain how the transcript’s alleged inaccuracies are related to his conviction for first-degree murder; (2) even assuming the transcript has inaccuracies that are related to his conviction for first-degree murder, there was overwhelming evidence, wholly unrelated to the transcript, that defendant committed first-degree murder; and (3) the trial court properly admitted the transcript under the procedures mandated by Michigan case law.” Affirmed.