Competency evaluation; MCL 330.2022(1); People v Kammeraad; Bona fide doubt; Right to be present; People v Montgomery; People v Buie; Absence from the courtroom; Harmless error; Right of confrontation; Surrogate witness; Waiver; People v McDonald

[In an order, the court vacated its prior opinion in this case (see eJournal # 83989 in the 7/23/25 edition) due to clerical errors. It later issued this new opinion.] Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s first-degree murder conviction. His conviction arose out the premeditated killing of the victim in 2003. During his retrial the facts pertaining to two other murders (1999 and 2007) were introduced as evidence. As a preliminary matter, the court found that defendant abandoned his challenge to the trial court’s denial of his postjudgment motion for new trial or a competency hearing. It then rejected his challenge to the way the trial court handled defense counsel’s requests for a competency hearing during trial. “Because a reasonable judge could have concluded that there was not a bona fide doubt regarding defendant’s competence on the first day of trial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to order a competency evaluation that day.” Further, it “did not abuse its discretion by denying defense counsel’s renewed request for a competency evaluation.” And while defendant “abandoned any challenge to the trial court’s denial of the postjudgment motion for new trial or evidentiary hearing as to his requests for a competency hearing by not including it in his questions presented, even if this issue were properly raised, we would still find that the trial court did not thereby abuse its discretion.” The court also rejected his claim that he was entitled to a new trial because his right to be present was violated. It found that although he “did not knowingly and intelligently waive” this right, the error was harmless as his “acquiescence to being removed, while not adequate to constitute a waiver, is indicative that there was no reasonable possibility that he was prejudiced.” Finally, the court rejected his contention that he was entitled to a new trial because his right to confrontation was violated when a “surrogate witness” testified. Testimony that “defendant’s DNA was found on a single cigarette butt inside” the 2007 victim’s apartment was “merely cumulative to other unchallenged evidence that was admitted at trial.” Thus, assuming any error existed, “it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Affirmed.