Joinder of charges; MCR 6.120(B); Admission of preliminary exam testimony; MRE 804(b)((1); “Unavailable” witness; MRE 804(a)(5); People v Bean; The Uniform Interstate Depositions & Discovery Act; MCL 600.2202(e); The Confrontation Clause; Harmless error; Jury exposure to an officer’s body cam video footage not admitted at trial; Extrinsic influence; People v Budzyn; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Access to discovery materials; Failure to request appointment of expert witnesses; People v Kennedy

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in joining the charges against defendant arising from two shooting incidents for trial, or in admitting a victim’s (H) preliminary exam testimony. Further, the jury’s exposure to an officer’s body cam video footage that was not admitted at trial did not warrant reversal, and defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed. He was convicted of AWIM, FIP, and felony-firearm. The court first held that the trial court was correct “that the two cases were related as defined by” MCR 6.120(B). Defendant’s actions giving rise to the charges “involved a series of connected acts. They happened on the same day, approximately 45 minutes apart, in geographic proximity to each other. The evidence showed that defendant left the scene of the apartment shooting on foot, and it was a witness to the apartment shooting who alerted the police to defendant’s location where the officer-involved shooting occurred. Both cases involved the discharge of a firearm and the two series of acts involved the same ballistics evidence. The two events were also connected insofar that the circumstances of the apartment shooting provided context for an understanding of the sequence of events that led to the officer-involved shooting.” While he contended that the cases should not have been joined because each “could have proceeded separately,” that is not the test under the court rule, and the MCR 6.120(B)(2) factors supported joinder. As to the admission of H’s preliminary exam testimony, to the extent defendant asserted it “was not admissible because it was given in the apartment shooting case, and thus, he did not have an opportunity to cross-examine her in the officer-involved shooting case,” the court disagreed. It noted that “MRE 804(b)(1) allows for the use of former testimony given in ‘the same or a different proceeding.’” Further, while the preliminary exam at which H “testified concerned only the apartment shooting case, defendant had the opportunity and same motive to develop her testimony” related to that case, and it was not offered for any purpose related to the officer-involved shooting. As to his other challenges to this testimony, the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act does not provide for “compelling a person’s presence at trial” and there was no right of confrontation violation. Affirmed.