Sufficiency of the evidence of possession for FIP & felony-firearm convictions; People v Minch; Allowing a witness to exercise her Fifth Amendment privilege; People v Steanhouse; People v Dyer; Right to present a defense; Right to a fair trial; Right of confrontation; Admission of a 911 call; Whether the statements in the call were testimonial; Davis v Washington

The court held that the prosecution presented sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to find that defendant possessed a firearm. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing defendant’s mother to exercise her Fifth Amendment privilege, and doing so did not deny him his rights to present a defense, to a fair trial, and to confrontation. Finally, his right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of a 911 call as his ex-girlfriend’s statements in the call were nontestimonial. Thus, the court affirmed his convictions of FIP of a firearm and ammunition, felony-firearm (second offense), and assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer. As to his sufficiency of the evidence argument, in the 911 call, his “ex-girlfriend told the dispatcher that he was ‘beatin[g] at the door with a gun’ and that she knew it was a nine-millimeter handgun. Two MSP troopers testified to hearing a ‘metal-on-metal’ sound during the chase, and the firearm was recovered in the same location where they heard this noise about 15 minutes later.” The court added that the gun was “visible on body-worn camera footage taken about three minutes after the troopers started chasing defendant.” As to the prosecution’s failure to submit “the firearm for DNA or fingerprint testing” the court noted that defendant pointed “to no authority showing that DNA, fingerprint, or other forensic testing is necessary to find that a defendant possessed a firearm.” The court next concluded “that the trial court did not err when it allowed defendant’s mother to invoke her Fifth Amendment right not to testify.” The trial court was not required to question her “or explicitly state that her privilege was legitimate,” and the court saw no reason to doubt that she “legitimately invoked the privilege.” It further noted that “the jury did not know why she did not testify” and that she “was not a witness against defendant” as she was a defense witness. Finally, the court found that the ex-girlfriend’s 911 call statements “were nontestimonial because her primary purpose was to seek help with an ongoing emergency.”