Sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction of possession of child sexually abusive material (CSAM); MCL 750.145c(1)(c) & (4); People v. Flick; Credibility; People v. Mikulen; Great weight of the evidence; Prosecutorial misconduct; Attacking the credibility of the defense; People v. McLaughlin; People v. Kennebrew; Whether the prosecutor argued facts that were not substantiated by evidence; People v. Unger; Presumption jurors follow their instructions; People v. Mahone; Misrepresenting evidence; People v. Watson; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 13; MCL 777.43(1)(c) & (2)(a); People v. Harmon; Alleged violation of Brady v. Maryland; People v. Chenault; Juror misconduct; People v. Dunigan; People v. Rose; People v. Fletcher; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Carbin; Failure to interview two witnesses; People v. Trakhtenberg; People v. Jurewicz; Failure to become familiar with the facts of the case; People v. Grant; Failure to get an expert to examine defendant’s cell phone or the cell phone extraction report; Trial strategy; People v. Payne; Failure to provide defendant with all the discovery materials; Failure to either suppress or clarify statements defendant made during a polygraph exam; Whether counsel should have moved to suppress defendant’s statement; Failing to advance a meritless position; People v. Snider

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions for possession of CSAM, and that they were not against the great weight of the evidence. Further, the prosecution did not engage in misconduct, OV 13 was accurately scored at 25 points, there was no Brady violation, the jury was not exposed to extraneous information, and defendant failed to show that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The case arose out of a search warrant executed at the house of defendant’s fiancée to investigate his involvement in a financial crime. “Eleven images of CSAM were found on defendant’s computer, and there was evidence that defendant intentionally searched for the CSAM.” Although he “testified that the images and search terms were the result of pop-ups, the jury ultimately determined that” the testimony of two detectives was more credible than his testimony. On the basis of the CSAM images found on his laptop and testimony that he “searched for terms that could be interpreted as searching for CSAM, the jury was able to reasonably infer that defendant downloaded the CSAM during those searches, and, thus, the jury determined that defendant knowingly possessed CSAM.” As to the scoring of OV 13, the court noted that he was convicted of five counts of CSAM possession. Even if his “assertion that all the CSAM was downloaded at once is true, Harmon nonetheless requires an assessment of 25 points because defendant was convicted of more than three crimes against a person.” There also was no Brady violation when the prosecution failed to provide the defense with a data report because the report was not favorable to the defense. Affirmed.