Sufficiency of the evidence to support a manslaughter conviction; People v. Townes; Gross negligence; People v. Head; Admission of the victim’s hearsay statements; MRE 801(c); Excited utterance hearsay exception; MRE 803(2); People v. Smith; Claim that the video of a witness interview was used beyond its limited permissible purpose of impeachment; Waiver; People v. Carter; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Payne; People v. Randolph; Matters of trial strategy; People v. Russell; Whether defendant was entitled to have the judgment of sentence corrected to state that he convicted of involuntary manslaughter; In re Nale Estate; MCL 750.321; Accuracy of the presentence investigation report (PSIR); MCR 6.429(C); People v. Bailey; Hand-written corrections to the PSIR; MCL 771.14(6); “Stricken” defined; People v. Brooks

Holding that the trial court did abuse its discretion in admitting victim-W’s statements under MRE 803(2), the court rejected defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge based on the claim that this evidence was inadmissible. He waived his argument as to the use of a witness interview, and his related ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed. Further, he was not entitled to have his judgment of sentence (JOS) corrected to specify he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. While he was entitled to some corrections to his PSIR, the court rejected his objection to the trial court making hand-written corrections rather than having it retyped. He argued that if W’s hearsay statements were not admitted, the other evidence against him was insufficient to support his involuntary manslaughter conviction (he was also convicted of felony-firearm). The trial court allowed three witnesses to testify about statements W made after she was shot, ruling that while the statements were hearsay, they were admissible as excited utterances. It was undisputed that W “was shot, and that immediately after being shot, she ran approximately 45 yards before collapsing in the grass in front of the apartment building. The three witnesses came upon [her] shortly after the shooting.” She appeared to be in pain, but was “able to speak with the individuals gathering around her. Receiving a gunshot to the chest is undoubtedly a startling event. Moreover, it can reasonably be inferred that the shooting caused [W] to experience trauma and anxiety, and that she was still under the influence of this stress when she made the statements.” Thus, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting W’s statements as excited utterances, and it rejected defendant’s claim that “the properly considered evidence was insufficient to prove” involuntary manslaughter. Further, the JOS accurately reflected his manslaughter conviction – “MCL 750.321 encompasses both types of common-law manslaughter,” and the JOS reflected that he was found guilty of “manslaughter” under that statute. The court affirmed his convictions and sentences, but remanded for correction of his PSIR.