Admissibility of evidence; Relevance; MRE 401 & 402; People v. Powell; Lay witness opinion testimony; MRE 701; People v. Heft; People v. Bragdon; People v. Musser; Police officer testimony; People v. Oliver; "Hearsay"; MRE 801(c); The "state-of-mind" exception; MRE 803(3); People v. Moorer; Admission of a party opponent; MRE 801(d)(2); Whether “sleep talk” testimony violated the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; People v. Henry (After Remand); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a meritless objection; People v. Ericksen; Prosecutorial misconduct; Principle that the prosecution may not inject issues into a trial that are broader than a defendant’s guilt or innocence; People v. Abraham; Principle that the prosecution may not appeal to the jurors’ sense of civic duty or attempt to persuade jurors based on the prestige of the office; People v. Cowell; Presumption that jurors follow their instructions; People v. Petri

The court held that the trial court did not err by excluding evidence of drug activity in the defendant’s neighborhood and that the police officers who testified did not opine as to his guilt or innocence. It also held that although the trial court erred by allowing a witness to testify as to the victim’s hearsay statements made to her two days before her death, the error was harmless. Finally, it held that the prosecution’s improper comments did not deny defendant a fair trial. He was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, felon in possession, and felony-firearm for shooting and killing his live-in partner. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of drug activities in his neighborhood. “[T]here was no evidence suggesting that the shooting was related to any drug activity, or that either defendant or [the victim] had ever been threatened by, harassed, or were involved with any drug dealers. Without any such evidence, the mere existence of drug trafficking in the neighborhood did not have any tendency to explain defendant’s possession of a gun on the night of the offense, and did not make defendant’s kidnapping explanation more probable.” It also rejected his argument that three police officers were erroneously permitted to offer their opinion of defendant’s guilt. “None of the officers offered an opinion that he or she believed defendant was guilty." Their testimony related to matters "that, although probative of defendant’s guilt, did not involve an opinion regarding the ultimate issue" of his guilt. It further found that testimony about “sleep talk” statements defendant allegedly made while in jail were admissible as an admission of a party opponent. Finally, the court found that the prosecution’s improper statements did not deny defendant a fair trial, noting that it “did not offer the [improper] references as a reason for finding defendant guilty and there was overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. In addition, the trial court instructed the jury that it was to ‘decide the case based upon the facts and the evidence and the law given to you by the Court and not your sympathies or prejudices,’ and that the lawyers’ statements and comments are not evidence.” The court also rejected the arguments made in defendant’s Standard IV brief. Affirmed.