Evidence; Authentication; Mitchell v Kalamazoo Anesthesiology, PC; Adequate foundation for real evidence & photos; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v Blackston; Whether the standard deadlock jury instruction (M Crim JI 3.12.) should have been given instead of a modified one; People v Hardin; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 7; People v Lydic; MCL 777.37(1)(a); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to raise meritless arguments or objections

The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting photos of the victim’s (B) home and a damaged light fixture collected from it over a year after the incident. Further, the trial court did not err in giving a modified deadlock jury instruction that added information not included in the standard one. Finally, the court upheld the 50-point score for OV 7 and rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Thus, it affirmed his AWIGBH conviction and sentence as a second-offense habitual offender to 18 months to 15 years. While he faulted the trial court for admitting the photos and fixture “because the evidence was unreliable, the weight or reliability of evidence is an issue for the jury” after the evidence is admitted. In addition, “there was a proper foundation to admit this evidence.” B’s girlfriend (A) testified extensively about the accuracy of the photos, which she took. While some “were taken an hour or so after the fight, some later in the evening, and some days later; [A] was clear in describing the circumstances surrounding each image and any changes she had made to the scene since the fight occurred.” Further, she, B, and a law enforcement officer “all testified that the light fixture, despite being recovered by police well after the fight, was damaged during the fight and thereafter was substantially unchanged. Given the proper foundation for admission, whether this evidence was genuine and reliable, including whether [it] accurately depicted the scene, was” for the jury to decide. The court also determined the “evidence was not unduly prejudicial under MRE 403.” The photos simply showed “the scene of the fight after [B] was hospitalized and the police left the home. While these images certainly show that the fight was violent, particularly given the blood spatter depicted, nothing indicates they were enhanced or otherwise altered to distort the nature of the incident and inflame the jury.” And nothing indicated the fixture was altered other than being dismantled from the ceiling. As to the challenged jury instruction, the court held that the “trial court’s additional commentary to the instruction did not improperly coerce the jury.” Nothing indicated that the jury was required to reach a verdict “or that deliberations would continue until” one was reached. And the court found the evidence supported a 50-point score for OV 7, “specifically under the excessive-brutality prong.”