Motion to strike the victim’s trial testimony; Nonresponsive testimony & the right of confrontation; Judicial misconduct claim based on the trial’s court role in questioning the victim; MRE 614(b); People v Stevens; Admission of text messages between the victim & her half-sister; Hearsay; Admission of the victim’s medical records; MRE 803(4) & (6)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial and did not engage in any impropriety. Also, the trial court did not err in admitting the text messages between the victim (M) and her half-sister. Finally, the victim’s medical records were generally admissible under MRE 803(4) “and any alleged error in failing to redact a brief reference to defendant as the alleged perpetrator of the abuse does not constitute reversible error.” He was convicted of CSC I and sentenced to 25 to 40 years. The case arose from sexual abuse allegations by M against defendant, her biological father. The court first rejected his claim that M’s testimony should have been stricken for being unresponsive and thus, infringing on his right of confrontation. It concluded that the record showed the Confrontation Clause’s requirements were met as “the victim was present with defendant in the courtroom, she was questioned under oath before the trier of fact, and defense counsel cross-examined her.” While she was at times unresponsive during “her two-day testimony, such unresponsiveness did not impair defendant’s ability to get a fair trial.” As to the trial court’s questioning M, the court found that considering the totality of the circumstances, it was “evident the trial court played an active role in eliciting the victim’s testimony. However, the trial court’s conduct did not show any bias against defendant, or deprive defendant of his right to confront the victim. Instead, the questioning and other methods used by the trial court helped the parties obtain additional information from the victim and proceed through the trial. Further, the trial court’s even-handed participation in defendant’s bench trial, did not deprive” him of a fair trial. While the court determined that defendant arguably raised “a legitimate concern that his identification as the perpetrator of abuse of the victim in the medical records should have been omitted or redacted[,]” the court noted that the “records indicated an inability to confirm the abuse allegations,” and that the trial court indicated it did not rely on the medical records in convicting him. Affirmed.