Prearrest delay; People v Woolfolk; People v Cain; Relevance of admitted testimony; MRE 401; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); Prosecutorial misconduct; Law enforcement failure to investigate; Distinguishing People v Jordan; Elicitation of “feelings & anxieties” testimony; Denigration of defense counsel; Curative instruction; “Vouching”; Denial of an addict-informer instruction (M Crim JI 5.7); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Cumulative error; Sentencing; Scoring of OVs 4-6 & 19; MCL 777.36(1)(a) & (2)(a); Premeditation; People v Plummer; MCL 777.34(1)(a); MCL 777.35(1)(a); MCL 777.49(c); Harmless error; Proportionality

The court held that defendant did not show “actual and substantial prejudice from the nine-month delay in his arrest nor was counsel ineffective for failing to move to dismiss on that basis.” As to his evidentiary error claims, it rejected his relevance challenges. While some other acts evidence was erroneously admitted, the error was not outcome-determinative. And although the “prosecutor erred by denigrating defense counsel in closing remarks,” reversal was not warranted. The court rejected his other prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. His law enforcement failure to investigate claim lacked merit, and the trial court did not err in declining to give an addict-informer instruction. Finally, his OV scoring challenges failed except as to OV 4, and that error did not require resentencing. Thus, the court affirmed his AWIM, discharge of a weapon in or at a building, and FIP convictions, and his within-guidelines sentence of 30 to 60 years for AWIM, to be served concurrently with 5 to 10 years for the weapon discharge and 3 to 5 years for FIP. As to the prearrest delay, the court noted that even if it considered his affidavit, his “statements are speculative and nonspecific, as he merely supposes that witnesses would have been identifiable.” In addition, his “allegation that he would have been able to find alibi witnesses but for the delay in arrest is undermined by his testimony at trial that he spent time with numerous witnesses on the night of the incident, including his fiancée, family, and friends. In other words, defendant managed to identify potential alibi witnesses despite the delay in his arrest.” And because he failed to show “actual and substantial prejudice, counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a futile motion to dismiss” based on the prearrest delay. As to his evidentiary error claims, the court found that the trial court erred in admitting certain “jail call evidence to impeach defendant’s prior statement” because the “call and elicited testimony did not undermine those statements.” Rather, the testimony went toward showing that he “acted in conformity with his character in that he had previously had dealings with snitches.” But the court determined the error was not outcome-determinative “given that the evidence strongly supported defendant’s guilt, the testimony was relatively brief, and was not explicitly referenced in closing[.]”