Reopening of proofs & rebuttal evidence; People v. Figgures; People v. Vasher; People v. Herndon; People v. Solomon; Demonstrative evidence; People v. Unger; Maps; Tanis v. Eding; Photos depicting the victim’s remains; Relevant evidence; MRE 401 & 402; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v. Cameron; People v. Sharpe; People v. Mills; Authentication of videos; MRE 901(a); Cell phone extraction records; Remedy for a discovery violation; People v. Dickinson; MCR 6.201(A)(6); Sentencing; People v. Lockett; Plain error; People v. Chelmicki; People v. Carines; Consideration of the guidelines; People v. Lockridge; OV 3; MCL 777.33(1)(a) & (2)(b); MCL 777.33(1)(c); OV 5; MCL 777.35(1)(a) & (b); MCL 777.35(2); Whether defendant was entitled to resentencing; People v. Francisco

The court concluded that the trial court properly admitted the additional evidence after allowing the reopening of proofs, and that photos of the victim’s burned remains were not unfairly prejudicial. Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by assessing 100 points for OV 3 or 15 points for OV 5. Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, mutilation of a dead body, and felony-firearm. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to life imprisonment without parole for murder, and concurrent prison terms of 40 to 60 years for armed robbery and 30 to 45 years for mutilation of a dead body, to be served consecutive to a 2-year term for felony-firearm. Among other things, he argued “that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecution to reopen the proofs to present additional evidence and that the evidence was not proper rebuttal evidence.” He challenged the admission of Sergeant F’s testimony that he corrected a time line exhibit. The record reflected “that during defendant’s testimony he challenged the time line’s accuracy and denied that the white car in the video footage was his” vehicle. The prosecution recalled F “who testified that the prosecution alerted him to a discrepancy between the video time and the actual time respecting when a white car circled near the crime scene. [F] reviewed the surveillance videos and corrected the mathematical discrepancy without reinterpreting or changing the video. The corrected time line did not give the prosecution an undue or unfair advantage because it merely involved the correction of a miscalculation in the synchronization of the video time and actual time, but did not alter the video evidence.” Thus, the trial court “did not abuse its discretion by permitting the prosecution to introduce this corrected evidence.” Defendant also argued that the trial court erred by admitting the video of his police interview with F. “The prosecution played the video in its case-in-chief but inadvertently did not seek its admission into evidence at that time.” Defendant did “not dispute that the jury could consider the video evidence in their deliberations since the jurors viewed it during the prosecution’s case-in-chief.” The court held that because “the jury had already viewed the video, admitting it into evidence after the prosecution rested and the trial court reopened the proofs did not give the prosecution an undue advantage or prejudice defendant.” Thus, the trial court did not err by admitting this video. Affirmed.