Prosecutorial error; People v. Brown; People v. Bennett; Closing argument; People v. Unger; Characterization of the DNA evidence; Presumption jurors follow their instructions; People v. Mahone; Sentencing; Review of a departure sentence; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v. Lockridge; People v. Milbourn; People v. Lampe; Necessity of explaining the extent of the departure; People v. Smith; Consecutive sentences; People v. Gonzalez; MCL 750.520b; People v. Norfleet; Accuracy of the information in the presentence investigation report (PSIR); People v. Maben; People v. Waclawski; Victim impact statement; MCL 780.764; People v. Golba; Waiver; People v. Carter; People v. McChester

While the court rejected defendant’s prosecutorial error claim, it concluded that the trial court failed to explain the extent of the departure in his sentence or why the 15-month departure was more proportionate than a within guidelines sentence. Remand was also necessary because the trial court did not articulate its rationale for imposing consecutive sentences, and for the trial court to determine the accuracy of the victim impact statement in the PSIR, to indicate whether it relied on the challenged information in sentencing defendant, or to resentence him if it determines it relied on inaccurate information. Thus, the court affirmed his CSC I, unarmed robbery, and stealing or retaining a financial device convictions, but remanded for further proceedings as to his sentencing. Although he argued that the prosecutor mischaracterized the DNA evidence during closing argument, the court disagreed, concluding that “the prosecutor’s arguments were reasonable inferences arising from the scientist’s testimony. The prosecutor stated that the scientist’s analysis provided strong support that defendant did not contribute DNA to the broom handle swab, but it did not exclude defendant as a potential contributor of DNA to the broom handle swab, which was consistent with the scientist’s testimony.” However, as to defendant’s sentences, a “sentence cannot be upheld when the connection between the reasons given by the trial court for the departure and the extent of the departure is unclear.” Thus, remand was required for the trial court “to further articulate its reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines or to resentence defendant.” It was also required related to the imposition of consecutive sentences for the two CSC I convictions. The trial court “stated its considerations for departing from the” guidelines in sentencing defendant, but failed to articulate its rationale for imposing consecutive sentences. “Indeed, it appeared to do so almost as an afterthought.” Finally, the record before the court was not sufficient “to determine the accuracy of the victim impact statement,” and it did not show “whether and to what the extent the trial court relied upon the information in the victim impact statement.” Thus, remand was also necessary in this respect.