Judicial impartiality; Structural error; People v Stevens; Sufficiency of the evidence; Third-degree child abuse in the presence of another minor; MCL 750.136d(1)(d); Intent; People v Dillard

The court held that defendant was not denied a fair trial because the trial judge did not pierce the veil of judicial impartiality, and that sufficient evidence supported his third-degree child-abuse conviction. The charges arose from a domestic incident in which the children’s mother, JD, and the two older children testified that defendant became enraged, broke part of a bedroom door, pulled JD’s hair, and, while seven-year-old MT was present, kicked 12-year-old BT, pushed him down, stomped on his hand, and struck him in the back of the head with a glass bottle. On appeal, the court explained that piercing the veil of impartiality is structural error. The court held that the judge’s interruptions largely reflected permissible efforts to “promote expedition,” keep testimony relevant, and “clear up confusion.” It found that the judge’s questions about defendant’s car keys were directed at clarifying testimony, not “invad[ing] the prosecutor’s role.” The court also emphasized that the record revealed no facially hostile language, no “skeptical, confrontational approach,” and curative instructions that the jury was not to treat the trial court’s comments or questions as evidence or pay attention to any opinion the jury may think the trial court had. The court next held that the evidence was sufficient because BT testified defendant “slammed” his foot on BT’s finger, and intent could be inferred from defendant’s “use of physical violence” and from “the natural consequences of his acts[.]” Affirmed.