Right to a fair trial; Right against self-incrimination; Admissibility of evidence of a defendant’s nonresponsive conduct; People v McReavy; Alibi; MCL 768.20; Notice; People v Merritt; Effect of a party-opponent admission under MRE 801(d)(2)(A); Admissibility of extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness; Use of extrinsic evidence to impeach witness credibility under MRE 613(b); People v Stanaway; Jury instructions

Holding that there were no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions. He was convicted of felony murder, armed robbery, felony-firearm, and AWIM for robbing a health food store. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that he was deprived a fair trial because “(1) the trial court committed various evidentiary and instructional errors, and (2) the prosecution improperly commented on his silence during cross-examination.” First, with no “constitutional barrier to admission of defendant’s partial silence during the interrogation,” the trial court “did not abuse its discretion by allowing this minimal questioning by the prosecutor.” Next, the court disagreed with defendant that he withdrew the alibi notices, and “while defendant’s trial counsel did ultimately forgo presenting any alibi witnesses at trial, defendant nevertheless testified on his own behalf that he was elsewhere during the robbery and shooting.” In addition, even if “one or both notices were withdrawn, there existed . . . sufficient contradictions for the notices and related questioning to be admissible as party-opponent admissions for impeachment purposes under McCray.” Further, defendant “was not prejudiced by the challenged jury instructions. Specifically, defendant never requested a limiting instruction regarding the alibi notices, and neither the trial court nor the prosecution suggested to the jury that the alibi notices could be used as substantive evidence.”