Limits on cross-examination; Right of confrontation; Identity of a confidential informant; Questioning about a prior inconsistent statement; MRE 613; Prosecutorial misconduct; Burden shifting; People v Fields; Severance of charges; MCR 6.120; People v Thurmond; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Sentencing; Habitual offender notice; Judgment of sentence (JOS)

The court rejected defendant’s claims related to limits on defense counsel’s cross-examination and that the prosecution shifted the burden of proof during rebuttal argument. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to sever drug charges from the homicide charge. Further, defendant did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and the court found that he was not entitled to relief related to the habitual offender notice. He was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, possession with intent to deliver 50 grams or more but less than 450 grams of cocaine, possession with intent to deliver meth, FIP, and felony-firearm. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender. On appeal, the court rejected his prosecutorial misconduct claim, noting that “defendant’s closing argument raised an issue pertaining to the victim’s conduct. Specifically, [he] alleged that the victim was involved in an altercation with” another individual (N) earlier in the day at a birthday party. But he failed to call N “to corroborate the victim’s aggressive conduct by having him testify at trial. Also, in closing argument, it was alleged that defendant wrote a letter to” another individual “but no one knew what it said because no one could locate him and he did not testify. The prosecutor’s rebuttal argument was not designed to shift the burden of proof to defendant, but to respond to defendant’s arguments.” The court held that, under “Fields, the prosecutor did not infringe on defendant’s rights or shift the burden of proof. The prosecutor’s theory was that defendant became angry over the entry into his closet where drugs and money were kept, an assertion confirmed by” one of defendant’s friends. Defendant presented an “alternate theory that he acted in self-defense and should be exonerated. The prosecutor’s comments on the validity of defendant’s theory did not shift the burden of proof.” As to the motion to sever the charges, the prosecution “alleged that the presence of drugs and money in the closet that a guest opened to obtain a coat were the impetus for defendant’s anger and for the victim’s involvement in trying to calm” him down. The court rejected his “position that the failure to find drugs and money in the closet warranted severance of the charges.” Affirmed but remanded for the ministerial task of correcting the amended JOS.