Juror substitution; Failure to instruct the jury to begin deliberations anew; MCR 6.411; People v Tate; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object; Prejudice; Failure to impeach a witness with an unlawfully driving away an automobile conviction; MRE 609; Motion to compel disclosure of complainants’ psychological records; People v Stanaway; Preclusion of cross-examination about sexual assaults by another individual; The rape-shield statute (MCL 750.520j); People v Morse; Right to present a defense; Judicial bias; People v Stevens; Denigrating defense counsel; Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27a(1); MRE 403; People v Watkins; Cumulative error

The court held that while the trial court erred in failing “to instruct the jury to begin deliberations anew after replacing a juror[,]” defendant was not denied a fair trial and was not prejudiced. He also was not entitled to relief based on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his “request for an in camera review of complainants’ counseling records.” And his right to present a defense was not violated by not being allowed to cross-examine them about the sexual assaults that another man (S) allegedly committed against them. The court also found that other acts evidence was properly admitted, and rejected his judicial misconduct and cumulative error claims. Thus, it affirmed his CSC I convictions involving two complainants (NT and BN). The “trial court should have instructed the jury to begin deliberations anew but the omission of the instruction did not violate defendant’s right to a properly-instructed jury. The trial court became aware of Juror 14’s decision to absent himself from the proceedings ten minutes after the jury was excused to begin deliberations (4:52 p.m. to 5:02 p.m.).” The trial court discussed the matter with the attorneys for 10 “minutes before bringing Juror 14 into the courtroom at 5:12 p.m. The 12 original jurors were thus assembled a total of 20 minutes before Juror 14 was removed. There is no record of how the jurors spent these 20 minutes, but it can be reasonably inferred that 20 minutes is not sufficient time for a jury to delve deeply into deliberations, especially when they expected to be released at 5:00 p.m. Defendant speculates that the jury might have chosen a foreperson in this time. However, the jurors’ actions are a matter of speculation, and speculation is insufficient to establish that he was denied a fair trial.” As to the denial of his motion to compel disclosure of complainants’ psychological records, he sought in camera review to look for information as to whether they ever accused S of sexual abuse. The court found that the only connection between S “and the allegations against defendant was that” their mother referred to another child’s allegations against S “and NT’s allegations against defendant in the same text message. This is too attenuated to support defendant’s hypothesis that NT or BN misremembered who abused them, let alone that their therapy records from well over a decade later might reveal as much.”