Discovery; Statutory duty to disclose toxicology results; MCL 257.625a(8); Disclosure of results vs disclosure of data; People v Lounsbery; Brady claim for nondisclosure of lab data; Brady v Maryland; Expert opinion foundation; MRE 703; People v Fackelman; Judicial reassignment procedure & prejudice; MCR 8.111(C)(1); People v McCline

The court held that: (1) the prosecution complied with the statutory disclosure requirement, (2) the record did not establish a Brady violation, (3) any MRE 703 error was harmless because the blood-test result was independently admissible, and (4) although the case reassignment violated MCR 8.111(C)(1), defendant showed no prejudice. He was charged with OWI-third offense after a late night stop revealed slurred speech, the odor of alcohol, refusal to complete additional field tests, and a later blood draw with a 0.15 BAC. The trial court admitted the lab report and the prosecution’s toxicologist, a different judge presided at trial, the jury convicted defendant, and the trial court denied his post-trial motion. On appeal, the court first rejected the statutory-disclosure claim because MCL 257.625a(8) requires only that the prosecution “‘furnish’ the test ‘results’ more than two days before trial,” not the underlying chromatogram data. “The present case cannot be distinguished from Lounsbery. The ‘result’ of the chemical testing referred to the finding that his BAC was 0.15. This result was communicated to defendant more than two days in advance of trial. Therefore, the prosecution complied with MCL 257.625a(8), and defendant is not entitled to reversal on this ground.” Next, the court found no Brady violation where defendant failed to show the withheld data was favorable or material. “Repeated conclusory statements that the evidence was favorable is not sufficient to meet defendant’s burden,” and he neither obtained the data post-trial nor framed a preservation-of-evidence (bad-faith) claim. As to MRE 703, even assuming error in allowing the toxicologist’s opinion without admitting the raw data, the court deemed it harmless because “the lab report containing the results of the test . . . was properly admitted” and, by statute, “the amount of alcohol . . . as shown by chemical analysis . . . is admissible” and “the prosecution shall offer the test results as evidence at trial.” Finally, the court agreed the last-minute reassignment violated MCR 8.111(C)(1), but reversal was unwarranted because “defendant is required to show prejudice,” and the record showed none. Cross-examination of the expert proceeded fully and the successor judge merely adhered to existing rulings. Affirmed.