Rebuttal testimony; Due process; Right to present a defense; Cumulative evidence; MRE 403; Applicability of MRE 106; Motion for a new trial; MCR 2.611(A)(1); MCR 6.431(B) & (C); Newly discovered evidence; People v Rao; Attorneys acting as an advocate & a witness in the same trial; Sufficiency of the evidence for felony-firearm & FIP convictions; Adequacy of the factual findings & conclusions of law after a bench trial

The court held that the trial court’s exclusion of defendant’s rebuttal “testimony as cumulative was not outside the range of principled outcomes” and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. Further, there was sufficient evidence to support his felony-firearm and FIP convictions. He was convicted after a bench trial. The evidence at issue in defendant’s first argument on appeal was his testimony about “his responses during his interrogation with Officer [M]. The trial court stopped a line of questioning about what defendant said to [M] about the gun, noting that defendant had already ‘stated right here, under oath, he didn’t know it was there, and had nothing to do with it.’” Thus, the issue concerned “whether the trial court had proper reason to prevent defendant from testifying about telling [M] he had not seen the gun after he already testified that he had not seen the gun.” The court concluded that while the evidence was relevant, given that “defendant wanted to testify that he told [M] he had not seen the gun after testifying he had not seen the gun, the excluded evidence would plainly have been cumulative.” The court rejected his reliance on MRE 106, noting that the “rule does not allow for the introduction of testimony offered to supplement a recorded statement, nor does it suggest that the evidence it authorizes may never be excluded as cumulative.” As to his motion for a new trial, “the trial court’s decision to exclude certain cumulative testimony was not an irregularity, let alone one that denied defendant a fair trial.” Further, as to his proposed newly discovered evidence, “because defendant cannot establish that he satisfied the requirement of reasonable diligence to produce” this evidence, whether it “would make a different result probable is inconsequential. The trial court’s denial of the motion for lack of due diligence was within the range of principled outcomes.” Finally, as to the sufficiency of the evidence, the court determined “the trial court made the appropriate factual findings and legal conclusions in support of its ruling, and met the requirement to place a definite and pertinent statement on the record in accordance with” the court rule. Affirmed.