Due process; Testimony from the victim that she believed defendant was guilty; Questions from the jury; MCR 2.513(I); People v Lowrey; Plain error review; Whether the error was outcome-determinative

The court held that while the trial court committed plain error in allowing the victim to testify, in response to a jury question, that she believed defendant was guilty, defendant failed to show the error was outcome-determinative. Thus, the court affirmed his unlawful imprisonment, assault by strangulation, and domestic violence, second offense convictions. It concluded that by permitting “the jury to ask an obviously inappropriate question, . . . and allowing it to be answered, the trial court abused its discretion. By confirming that she believed defendant was guilty, the complainant’s testimony did not merely imply that he was guilty; it directly stated her belief that defendant was guilty. The question and the response were in direct violation of the well-established rule that a witness may not offer an opinion of the defendant’s guilt.” But it concluded defendant did not meet his burden to show that the error affected his substantial rights so as to warrant reversal. The “question, which explicitly asked whether the complainant ‘today’ believed that defendant was guilty, indicated that the jury was asking about” her conflicting preliminary exam testimony, “during which she attested that she did not believe [he] intended to hurt her. In other words, the jury was presumably not inquiring as to the victim’s subjective opinion about [his] guilt, and was instead asking whether she had changed her mind about [his] intentions toward her. Further, defendant testified after the victim, giving the jury the opportunity to hear [his] version of events and assess his credibility, which blunted any prejudicial effect of the victim’s opinion on [his] guilt. After” his testimony, the jury asked him if “he ‘dragged [the victim] and pulled her hair,’ ‘choked her,’ ‘used her as a mop for the pee and dog poop,’ or ‘tried to make her eat poop.’ These questions suggest that the jury was not prepared to accept the victim’s testimony at face value. And” the court noted that it is the jury’s role, not the court’s, to assess the weight of the evidence or the witnesses’ credibility.