Public-trial right; People v Davis; Flight instruction; People v Coleman; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Prior identification hearsay exception; MRE 801(d)(1)(C); People v Sykes; Prosecutorial error in rebuttal; People v Unger; Sentence proportionality; People v Posey

The court held that none of defendant’s claims warranted relief and affirmed his convictions and sentences for second-degree murder, FIP, and felony-firearm. The case arose from the shooting death of the victim at a residence known for meth use, with conflicting witness accounts identifying defendant as the shooter. On appeal, the court first addressed defendant’s public-trial claim arising from Covid-era spectator limits and streaming used in mid-2022. It held the trial court “erred by restricting public access,” but concluded the error was not “plain” because the parties “acquiesced” and the court treated streaming as “no different than if somebody had walked into the courtroom.” Defendant also failed to show prejudice for his ineffective assistance claim. The court rejected challenges to the flight instruction, explaining that “flight” includes “fleeing the scene,” “leaving the jurisdiction,” and “attempting to escape custody,” and the evidence supported an inference defendant tried to evade arrest. The court upheld admission of a detective’s testimony that a witness previously identified defendant, holding the statement was admissible under MRE 801(d)(1)(C) as “one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person.” The court found no prosecutorial error warranting relief because while some remarks “may have been improper on their face” they were responsive to defense counsel’s closing arguments and the jury was instructed that arguments are not evidence. Finally, the court held the within-guidelines murder sentence was presumed proportionate, he did not overcome that presumption, and “a proportionate sentence is not cruel or unusual.”