Rights to present a defense & confront witnesses; Limits on cross-examination; Assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer (MCL 750.81d(1)); People v. Moreno; Warrantless arrest based on an officer’s receipt of a bulletin providing reason to suspect the person committed a felony (MCL 764.15); Judicial misconduct; People v Stevens; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a futile objection; Sentencing; Scoring of OVs 1, 9, 14, & 19; MCL 777.31(1)(d), 777.39(1)(c), 777.44(1)(a), & 777.49(b); Unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle (UDAA)

The court rejected defendant’s claims that he was deprived of his rights to present a defense and to confrontation, and also held that the officers had reasonable cause and lawfully arrested him. Further, he was not entitled to relief based on his claim of judicial misconduct, and defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a futile objection. Finally, the court found no error in the trial court’s scoring of OVs 1, 9, and 14 and that any error as to OV 19 did not affect the outcome. The appeal arose from two separate cases. In one, defendant was convicted of UDAA and assault and battery (the driving-away case). In the other, he was convicted of felonious assault; assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer; and malicious destruction of property (“the felonious-assault convictions”). In the driving-away case the record showed “that defense counsel was not prevented from cross-examining the victim to support the defense that the victim had provided belated or incomplete surveillance footage. The only question that defense counsel was prevented from asking was why it had taken the victim nine days to turn over the videos after the victim had testified that it had taken him about a week to do so. On this point, the record further confirms that defense counsel failed to rebut the prosecutor’s objection based on relevancy.” As to defendant's second argument, the “trial court did not err in ruling that the victim’s statements to the police were inadmissible unless the motive to fabricate arose before [he] made the statements.” The court also found no error in the trial court’s scoring of 10 points each for OVs 1 and 9 in sentencing defendant for his felonious assault conviction, and that the record supported the scoring of 10 points for OV 14 in sentencing him in the driving-away case. As to the scoring of 15 points for OV 19 in that case, the “trial court’s failure to articulate with more specificity that defendant used force while attempting to flee from the police was not a clear or obvious error” and further, any error did not affect his substantial rights given “the trial court’s prior finding that [he] struck the police vehicle so forcefully that it put his passengers in danger[.]” Affirmed.