Mistrial after unresponsive remark; People v Griffin; Admission of a Facebook post; Relevance & unfair prejudice; MRE 401 & MRE 403; People v Mills; Cross-examination; MRE 611(c); Confrontation; People v Morton

The court held that none of defendant’s claims warranted reversal, affirming his convictions for first-degree murder and conspiracy. The prosecution proved that defendant orchestrated the killing with codefendants, procured a gun, lured the victim to an abandoned facility, and later made a Facebook post calling himself the “Grim Reaper,” naming his “reapers” crew, and saying the victim had to “go and never come back.” The trial court denied a mistrial after a witness mentioned defendant’s prior incarcerations, admitted the Facebook post, and barred cross-examination of a witness about his prior informant status. On appeal, the court held that “an unresponsive, volunteered answer to a proper question is not grounds for the granting of a mistrial,” and the prompt curative instruction directing jurors to disregard the remark cured any prejudice. The court also found that the Facebook post was properly admitted because it was probative of motive, premeditation, intent, and relationships among alleged conspirators. It explained that “exclusion is required under MRE 403 only when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence.” Addressing confrontation, the court held that limiting cross-examination about a witness’s prior informant role was error because bias is always a proper subject. It noted that “a limitation on cross-examination that prevents a defendant from placing before the jury facts from which bias, prejudice, or lack of credibility of a prosecution witness might be inferred constitutes denial of the constitutional right of confrontation.” But it concluded the error was harmless in light of other bias evidence, cumulative testimony, and the strong proof of guilt.