Admission of the nurse examiner’s testimony; Hearsay; MRE 803(4); People v Meeboer (After Remand); Recorded recollection; Prosecutorial misconduct; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Due process

The court held that the trial court did not plainly err by admitting nurse examiner-S’s testimony about what victim-AM “and AM’s mother told her during AM’s medical” exam, and defense counsel was not ineffective for not objecting to S’s testimony. “Defendant waived any claim of error arising from the trial court’s decision to allow the prosecutor to play a portion of the videorecording, and defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of AM’s videorecorded forensic interview because the foundational requirements were met to allow it to be played as a recorded recollection under MRE 803(5).” While the trial court erred in playing the audio of the “interview during deliberations, the error did not affect defendant’s substantial rights.” His prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance claims failed, “and he waived any challenge to the trial court’s jury instructions as given.” Lastly, he did not establish “a due-process violation arising from the investigating detective’s processing of the underwear that AM was wearing at the time of the sexual assault.” He was convicted of CSC I and CSC II. AM was seven years old at the time of the offense. Defendant argued, among other things “that the trial court plainly erred by admitting the hearsay statements of AM and her mother through” S’s testimony “because the statements did not meet the requirements of MRE 803(4).” The critical questions were “whether AM’s statements were reasonably necessary for diagnosis and treatment and if AM had a self-interested motivation to be truthful in order to receive proper medical care.” The court held that AM’s statements to S “were reasonably necessary for diagnosis and treatment.” Evidence also supported “that AM had a self-interested motivation to be truthful in order to receive proper medical care.” The court concluded “that the totality of the circumstances supports the admission of AM’s statements because they were trustworthy.” Thus, defendant had “not shown that the trial court committed plain error by allowing [S] to testify about AM’s statements during the forensic medical examination.”