Hearsay; Expert opinion testimony; MRE 702; Lay witness opinion testimony; MRE 701; Prosecutorial misconduct; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); Gambling & absenteeism; Relevance; MRE 401; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; Cumulative effect of alleged errors; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to raise all the alleged errors

The court held that the evidentiary error of allowing into evidence Police Chief S’s inadmissible hearsay testimony did not affect defendant’s substantial rights. Also, none of S’s opinion “testimony was overly dependent upon scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge such that it was subject to MRE 702.” Further, the prosecution’s challenged remarks did not rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct, and the failure to give defendant notice of the other acts “evidence was harmless and did not undermine the reliability of the verdict against” her. Finally, her cumulative error and ineffective assistance of counsel claims also failed. She was convicted of embezzlement by an agent or employee of $1,000 or more but less than $20,000 and illegal sale or use of a financial transaction device. The appeal arose from her “embezzlement from and inappropriate use of a company debit card belonging to her then-employer,” Stone Lodge. Defendant argued that S’s testimony was impermissible hearsay that did not fall under any of the hearsay exceptions. But only S’s “testimony about what the Stone Lodge owner and its two employees said was hearsay. The question” then became whether its erroneous admission affected defendant’s substantial rights. The court held that it did not. In light of other evidence against her, the error of admitting S’s “inadmissible hearsay testimony did not result in the conviction of an innocent person because, even without the inadmissible hearsay evidence, there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of embezzlement and unlawful use of a financial transaction device. Further, the error of admitting the inadmissible hearsay testimony did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial or result.” While the prosecution conceded that defendant was not given proper notice of the other acts evidence, because the evidence was admissible, arguments against its admission before trial would been unsuccessful. The court also noted “that even without the evidence of defendant’s gambling and absenteeism from work, the evidence against defendant was overwhelming.” Affirmed.