Prosecutorial misconduct; Pursuing a line of questioning about whether the second complainant was “terrorized” by other students; People v. Roscoe; Good-faith attempt to introduce evidence; People v. Noble; Alibi rebuttal; Request for a mistrial; People v. Schaw; Testimony about pictures of genitals; Relevant evidence; MRE 401 & 402; People v. Crawford; People v. McGhee; MRE 403; “Unfair prejudice”; People v. Mardlin; People v. Blackston; “Hearsay”; MRE 801(c) & 802; People v. Dendel (On Second Remand); Prior inconsistent statements; MRE 613(b); People v. Jenkins; Out-of-court statement introduced to show its effect on a listener as opposed to proving the truth of the matter asserted; People v. Gaines; Claim that the trial court improperly excluded testimony of a school counselor that the second complainant was an “over-exaggerator” and improperly admitted a search warrant exhibit as evidence during an attempt to rehabilitate his credibility; Cumulative effect of alleged errors; People v. Knapp

[Unpublished opinion.] The court held that the prosecutor’s conduct was a good-faith attempt to admit relevant evidence. Thus, defendant-Algra failed to show error, much less a plain error affecting his substantial rights. He was convicted of five counts of CSC III with the victim, but acquitted of three counts of CSC I with a second complainant. He taught at the victim’s school as a swim coach. Defendant claimed, among other things, that the prosecutor committed misconduct by pursuing a line of questioning about whether the second complainant was “terrorized” by other students. Reviewing the challenged statements in context, the court held that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct. The victim “discussed the treatment of the second complainant when explaining why he did not fully disclose Algra’s conduct to police in the first instance. The victim’s reasons for failing to fully disclose Algra’s conduct to police during the initial interview was relevant to the victim’s credibility.” Nothing about the prosecutor’s questions suggested that “she was deliberately attempting to inflame the jury rather than to explore a pertinent issue. The prosecutor’s questions in and of themselves were not prejudicial or improper, and the prosecutor attempted to constrain her questions to the boundaries of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.” Affirmed.