Right of confrontation; Right to a fair trial; Evidence from nontestifying confidential informant (CI); Legality of traffic stop; Abandoned issue; Michigan’s no one-man conspiracy rule

The court found “no plain error occurred when the trial court properly admitted evidence of nontestimonial information by the” CI through Officer R’s testimony. “Moreover, the trial court did not commit plain error in entering a guilty verdict for [defendant-Aceval’s] conspiracy charge where [he] was not jointly tried with” a co-conspirator (C), and C “agreed to plead guilty and testify against [him] in exchange for a lesser sentence.” He was convicted of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance in an amount that exceeded 1,000 grams. The court held that the CI’s ‘“tips’ were not testimonial in nature and thus, no confrontation clause issues arise.” Rather, the CI “provided identifying information of Aceval, and officers conducted their own investigation to confirm information that was provided.” The court noted that at “trial, while it seems clear that the [CI] offered some additional information beyond Aceval’s name and identifying information (for example, that a massive drug shipment was forthcoming), the prosecution and defense on direct and cross examination failed to indicate what additional information was gathered.” R testified about the investigation, “including efforts to verify the tips, and explained why and how law enforcement began to survey Aceval. He did not offer the information gathered by the [CI] to prove the truth of the matter being asserted; he only offered the information to show the effect of the information on the investigation.” To obtain relief for this unpreserved claim of error, defendant must prove “‘that the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings.’” He did “not articulate how the outcome of the trial would have been different if the claimed erroneous testimony had been excluded or if defense counsel would have been allowed to cross-examine the confidential informant. That is particularly difficult where, as here, [C] and key partner in his drug operation testified against him.” Because Aceval failed “to establish error or that the outcome of the trial would have been different without the tip information, he is not entitled to relief.” Finally, he was “not entitled to relief under the common law rule because he and [C] were not tried together, and [C] received a plea-agreement to avoid being convicted of the conspiracy charge.” Affirmed.