Admission of a photo; People v Anderson; MRE 403; People v Head; Attorney-client privilege; Swidler & Berlin v United States; Sufficiency of the evidence for first-degree premeditated murder & first-degree arson convictions; Identity of the perpetrator; Fingerprint evidence; Failure to timely disclose the evidence; Posing a juror-submitted question to a witness; MCR 2.513(I)

Concluding that the challenged autopsy photo was not shocking or otherwise inherently prejudicial, the court held that there was no error in its admission. The trial court also did not err in allowing a victim’s (C) attorney to invoke the attorney-client privilege on C’s behalf and thus, not testify about an altercation between C and C’s former wife. The court held that there was sufficient evidence of defendant’s identity to support his first-degree premeditated murder and arson convictions. Further, the disclosure of fingerprint evidence a week before trial “did not constitute an ‘egregious circumstance’ requiring” its exclusion. Finally, the trial court did not err in posing a juror question to a witness. Thus, the court affirmed all of defendant’s convictions. During “the testimony of the forensic pathologist who performed autopsies on the bodies of the three victims, defense counsel” unsuccessfully objected to introduction of a photo depicting victim-L’s face. The expert wished to use it “to assist him in explaining how that victim was both shot in the head and then exposed to the house fire.” The court found that it was useful to the expert and probative “of both the shooter’s intent and the victim’s exposure to a house fire.” Further, given that “the evidence reflected the plain realities of the situation, the risk of ‘unfair prejudice’ was slight and thus did not ‘substantially outweigh[]’ the probative value of the evidence[.]” One of the defense strategies was to suggest that someone else killed the victims. “In hopes of showing that a severe state of animosity existed between” C and his former wife “and her intimate companion” (B), defense counsel sought to call an attorney who represented C “in an unrelated matter to offer information gleaned from that representation.” The court noted that the non-admission of this evidence did not prejudice defendant because he had an opportunity to cross-examine C’s former wife and B at trial. Defense counsel took advantage of it to ask her “about the violence between herself and [C], and to ask [B] about his low opinion of” C. The court also held that in light of the evidence of his “motive, and his association with items used in the murders and arson, there was more than sufficient evidence for a jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was guilty of those offenses.”