Domestic violence; Admissibility of the victim’s statement to a police officer under MCL 768.27c; Whether a statement is “testimonial”; Michigan v Bryant; Motion to stay the proceedings under MCR 6.126; The court’s remand power; MCR 7.216(A)(5)

The court held that remand was required for the trial court to review an officer’s body-camera footage and determine whether the victim’s statements to the officer were testimonial. Defendant was charged with a variety of crimes, including domestic violence, stemming from an altercation with the victim during a custody exchange of their three-year-old child, BM. After he was bound over, the prosecution moved to admit the victim’s statements to the officer under MCL 768.27c. The trial court denied the motion and excluded the statements, finding they “were not made to assist with an ongoing emergency but rather were made to assist with prosecuting defendant, and as such, were testimonial.” It also denied the prosecution’s motion for a stay under MCR 6.126 “on the basis that ‘an appeal would be frivolous because legal precedent is clearly against the prosecutor’s position.’” On appeal, the court noted that because body-worn camera footage was not introduced at defendant’s preliminary exam, the trial court’s “determination that the victim’s statements to police were testimonial was based only on the testimony of” the officer and the victim's mother. In the court’s view, “the body-worn camera footage is highly relevant for determining whether the victim’s statements to police were testimonial.” And because “there were no findings of fact regarding the body-worn camera footage, the existing record” was insufficient for appellate review. Reversed and remanded.