Venue; People v Houthoofd; Harmless error; MCL 762.8; Applicability of MCL 762.9; Admission of an autopsy photo & text messages; MRE 403; Right to a fair trial; Inadvertent display of a photo of defendant in jail to the jury; The veil of judicial impartiality; People v Stevens; Questioning of a defense expert; MCR 614(b)

While the court found that venue for the charges in one of these consolidated cases in Macomb County was improper, it held that the error was harmless. It upheld the admission of a black and white autopsy photo depicting the murder victim’s (F) dead fetus as well as text messages between defendant and F. It concluded that he was not denied a fair trial by the inadvertent display of a photo of him in jail to the jury, and that the trial court’s questioning of a defense expert (B) did not pierce the veil of judicial impartiality. Thus, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions of AWIM, FIP, carrying a weapon with unlawful intent, third-degree fleeing and eluding, and felony-firearm in one case (Docket No. 347207), and first-degree premeditated murder, assault of a pregnant individual causing a miscarriage or stillbirth, and felony-firearm in the other case. The charges in Docket No. 347207 arose from his conduct in Lapeer County the day after F was murdered in Macomb County. While the prosecution asserted that “a defendant fleeing into Lapeer County has an effect on Macomb County for the sole reason that the original crime was committed in Macomb County[,]” the court disagreed. As to the argument that venue in Macomb County was proper “because all of defendant’s acts were part of the same plan,” the court noted that “being part of the same ‘plan’ or having events ‘linked’ is not the test for determining whether venue is proper in a county where the crime did not take place. The relevant inquiry under MCL 762.8 is whether defendant intended any of his acts in Lapeer County to have any effect in Macomb County.” The court found that the answer here was no. Further, MCL 762.9 did not apply “to place venue with Macomb County.” But while the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the Lapeer County charges due to venue, the court concluded that the error was harmless. Given that the evidence of his guilt of those crimes was overwhelming, he did not show “that the result would have been different had he been tried in Lapeer County.” As to the photo of defendant, it did not suggest that he “was in a jail and did not somehow taint his presumption of innocence.” While the trial court’s questioning of B about bullet metal jackets appeared unnecessary, it did not show bias against B or defendant.