Motion for a mistrial; Unredacted police interview video shown to the jury; Prosecutorial error; Expressions of personal opinion; Disparaging defense counsel; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object; Jury verdict form & jury instructions; Opportunity to find defendant guilty of CSC I under MCL 750.520b(1)(a) without subjecting him to a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence under (2)(b); Waiver; Use of the word “victim”; Sentencing; Failure to articulate why a within-guidelines sentence was proportionate; People v Posey

Concluding defendant did not show that he was unfairly prejudiced by the jury seeing two unredacted portions of his police interview video, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial. It also rejected his prosecutorial error and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Finally, it found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him, as a fourth-offense habitual offender, to 30 to 75 years for his CSC I conviction. He first argued that he should have been granted “a mistrial after two portions of defendant’s police interview video were played for the jury, contrary to the parties’ pretrial agreement to redact them.” The court disagreed, noting that the “two references were brief and made during an over half-hour long video. The segments did not provide details on any past ‘domestic’ or CPS encounter. The video did not reveal the nature of the ‘domestic’ or whether defendant was the aggressor. The video also did not detail [his] involvement in the CPS matter.” Further, he failed to show “the inclusion of the unredacted video clips was outcome-determinative. There was significant evidence of defendant’s guilt presented at trial. The jury was able to hear [victim-]AW’s first-hand account of the assaults. The jury also heard testimony from AW’s mother and caretaker, who described AW’s behavioral changes, including locking her bedroom door at night while in her mother’s home with defendant. The jury further heard testimony about AW’s forensic interview team ruling out certain alternative hypotheses about why AW would say defendant assaulted her, including that her mother was behind the allegations despite AW not having revealed them to her mother. Furthermore, eight-year-old AW began puberty early, a process that the pediatric doctor testified had been correlated with sexual abuse.” The court additionally found that “the jury could infer defendant’s guilt on the basis of statements he made during his” police interview. While he “denied assaulting AW, he admitted to going into her bedroom at night as she had described. Defendant also made certain comments to [the detective] that the jury could find incriminating[.]” The court further concluded that, “to the extent the inclusion of the unredacted video had some prejudicial effect, . . . [a]ny potential prejudice could have been eliminated by a curative jury instruction.” Affirmed.