Second-degree arson; Sufficiency of the evidence; MCL 750.73(1); Circumstantial evidence; People v Walker; Evidentiary error; Relevance; MRE 401; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; Harmless error; People v Phillips; Sentencing; OV 1; Incendiary device; MCL 777.31(1)(b) & (3)(b); OV 2; MCL 777.32(1)(b) & (3)(d); People v Naccarato

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s second-degree arson conviction, any error in admitting certain police testimony was harmless, and OVs 1 and 2 were properly scored based on use of an incendiary device. Defendant lived in his father and uncle’s home, slept in the basement, and was facing eviction when a fire began in the basement. On appeal, the court first held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the fire was intentionally set because the fire investigator eliminated other possible causes and concluded that the fire was started “by a human hand using an ‘open flame device’” and combustible fuel. It also held that sufficient circumstantial evidence identified defendant as the culprit because he had a lighter, was the first to know about the fire, slept in the basement where it started, had a motive from the eviction, and made “unprovoked and agitated assertions” that his father and uncle thought he was responsible. The court next found that defendant’s statements “about Rittenhouse and Kenosha” were admissible as evidence of violent state of mind, but agreed that testimony about racist statements and prior police contact did not fit the trial court’s stated rationale. Still, any error was harmless because the testimony was brief, was barely referenced, and “there was ample unobjectionable and untainted evidence of defendant’s guilt.” Finally, the court held that OVs 1 and 2 were properly scored at 20 points and 15 points, respectively, because the combustible fuel qualified as an incendiary device, and under Naccarato, victims sleeping in a house set on fire were “subjected or exposed to” that device. Affirmed.