Judicial misconduct; People v Stevens; Veil of impartiality; Distinguishing People v Hudson (Unpub); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to the trial court’s instructions; Other acts evidence; Eliciting testimony from a victim that defendant had assaulted her; Failure to request a Daubert hearing & challenge expert testimony; Failure to object to testimony informing the jury that defendant was incarcerated; Consecutive sentencing

Holding that (1) defendant had not overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality, (2) he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences, the court affirmed. The case arose out of his sexual abuse of his two nieces (LM and TK). He was convicted of CSC I and II. Defendant argued “that the trial court pierced the veil of impartiality by telling the complainants in front of the jury that they could discuss their testimony with therapists.” Applying the Stevens factors, the court concluded “that the veil of impartiality was not pierced.” Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court “found no error requiring reversal (plain or otherwise) in the trial judge’s statements to LM and TK.” Defendant’s citation to Hudson was unpersuasive. “In Hudson, the trial judge directly addressed the jury at length after the victim’s testimony, offering the jurors mental health resources and counseling services as a result of the ‘tough testimony’ they had heard.” The court noted that the “trial judge also stated that ‘these cases—are challenging for me and everyone else in the courtroom[.]’” It found “that the trial court had ‘pierced the veil of judicial impartiality by indicating that it was disturbed by the victim’s testimony, thus creating the appearance of sympathy for, or partiality toward, the victim.’” It noted that the “trial court made no such indication in this case; rather, it merely correctly instructed LM and TK that they could discuss their testimony with a therapist, if either was seeing one.” While it was “true that other witnesses were not given this additional instruction, we conclude, on the whole, that defendant has not overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality.” Affirmed.