Hearsay; MRE 803(3) & (4) hearsay exceptions; Right of confrontation; Nontestimonial statements; Questioning defendant about prior domestic-violence arrests; Lack of the notice required under MCL 768.27b(2); Harmless error; Prosecutorial error; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object & to move for a mistrial; Cumulative error

The court held that the statements defendant challenged as hearsay were admissible under MRE 803(4) and also not testimonial, so the Confrontation Clauses did not apply. Further, to the extent the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to question him about his alleged earlier arrests for domestic violence in the absence of notice, the error was harmless in this bench trial. The court also rejected his prosecutorial error, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error claims. He was convicted of domestic violence, third offense. As to the victim’s hearsay statement, an EMS technician (C) “was rendering aid to the victim and inquired how she was injured. The victim responded by telling [C] she was punched in the face. The victim described her injury and how she was injured while seeking medical attention. As such, her statement was admissible hearsay under MRE 803(4).” The court noted that even if defendant was “correct that the trial court admitted [C’s] testimony under MRE 803(3), and that it was not admissible under that subrule,” the court does not reverse when a trial “‘court reaches the right result for the wrong reason.’” As to his right of confrontation argument, he did not explain “why the victim’s statement was testimonial; instead, he simply concludes that it was.” And the court found that “the (1) short time between the assault and [C’s] treatment; (2) the victim’s lack of an identification of her assailant; and (3) the victim disclosing this assault to” C and not the police officer, showed that her “statement was made in seeking medical assistance and not to establish criminal culpability or to support an investigation.” As to the questioning about his prior arrests, MCL 768.27b applied and the prosecution did not provide the required notice. But no evidence of his “10 previous arrests for domestic violence was actually admitted at trial. While the prosecution asked defendant whether he had 10 previous arrests for domestic violence, [his] answer was essentially that he did not know[.]” No other evidence was presented as to those arrests, only evidence of defendant’s two prior domestic violence convictions. As the trial court is presumed to know the law during a bench trial, the court presumed “the trial court made its findings based solely on admissible evidence.” Affirmed.