Permitting the jury to rewatch in the courtroom videos introduced into evidence; Forfeited rather than affirmatively waived claim; Plain-error; People v Carines; MCR 2.513(O) & (P); External influence; Distinguishing People v Chambers; Prejudice; Preliminary instructions

The court held that the “trial court did not err when, after the jury had already begun its deliberations, it permitted the jury to rewatch in the courtroom videos introduced into evidence. Nor were defendant’s substantial rights affected by the trial court’s incomplete preliminary instructions, given that the trial court properly instructed the jury at the conclusion of proofs.” He challenged the trial court’s process for showing the videos to the jury after they had begun their deliberations. As “to the jurors’ request, there is no absolute right for a party to have an exhibit in the jury-deliberation room.” Defendant’s main claim was “that the presence of the judge, lawyers, and others in the courtroom, while the two videos were replayed, interfered with the jury’s ability to deliberate among themselves while watching the videos.” He relied primarily on Chambers. But Chambers was distinguishable. “First, no one outside the jurors themselves entered the jury-deliberation room. The jurors were free from outside influences to deliberate among themselves in that room, both before and after the replaying of the videos. Second, no one in the courtroom communicated with the jurors, other than the trial court’s brief explanation about the replaying of the videos.” Third, there was “nothing to suggest that the jurors were somehow barred from taking notes during the replaying of the videos, and, in fact, it seems reasonable that, by not talking among themselves during the replaying of the videos, each individual juror was likely in a better position to focus on and evaluate the evidence for him- or herself. They could then take their individual impressions and evaluations and return to the deliberation room to continue their discussions, which is what they appear to have done, given that they deliberated for” about another 90 minutes before issuing their verdict. Nothing on the record suggested “even a remote possibility of a chilling effect on the jurors’ deliberations.” As to prejudice, the record made “clear that, outside of the trial court’s brief explanation about the showing of the videos, no one in the courtroom communicated with a juror, and no juror communicated with anyone in the courtroom. Had lawyers or courtroom personnel invaded the jury-deliberation room, a chilling effect might very well have existed, as in Chambers; but the mere presence of other people in the courtroom while the jury reviewed evidence and then retired back to the jury-deliberation room is not enough to create a prejudicial chill.” The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant a mistrial on this basis. Affirmed.