CSC; Alibi defense; MCL 768.20; People v Bennett; Notice of charges; MCL 767.45(1)(b); People v Bailey; Forensic-interviewer testimony; Vouching; Distinguishing People v Douglas; Impeachment; Prior inconsistent statement; MRE 613(b); Barnett v Hidalgo; Confrontation Clause; Cross-examination limits; People v Gaines; Judicial impartiality; People v Stevens; Cruel or unusual punishment; MCL 750.520b(2)(b); People v Benton

The court held that defendant was not entitled to relief from his CSC convictions or his mandatory minimum sentences. Defendant was convicted of CSC I and CSC II involving a child under 13. He challenged the amended charging period, exclusion of an alibi witness, forensic-interviewer testimony, impeachment limits, cross-examination limits, judicial conduct, and the 25-year mandatory minimum CSC I sentences. On appeal, the court first held that the alibi ruling did not warrant reversal because, although “the prosecutor now concedes that, under controlling caselaw, the notice was timely,” defendant still presented the substance of the testimony, and it “failed to establish that defendant lacked access to [the victim] throughout the charged timeframe.” The court also held that the amended information gave adequate notice because “in child CSC cases, time is not of the essence,” and the two-year date range was permissible where the child testified that the offenses occurred when she was 10 or 11. The court next held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the forensic interviewer’s (T) testimony because T “did not testify to the substance of any statements made by” the victim, and she did not opine that the child was truthful. The court agreed that defense counsel should have been allowed to lay a foundation to impeach the child with prior statements to her mother, but held that the error was not outcome-determinative because there was circumstantial corroboration and an explanation that she “was trying to tell her mother everything” but stopped after seeing her mother’s reaction. The court also upheld limits on questioning about explicit images because the defense theory was “speculative,” and the proposed inquiry was “marginally relevant.” The court further held that the trial judge did not pierce the veil of impartiality because the comments reflected “permissible control of the proceedings rather than advocacy or partiality.” Finally, relying on Benton, the court held that defendant’s challenge to MCL 750.520b(2)(b) failed because that decision remains binding. Affirmed.