Animal cruelty; Adequate care; MCL 750.50; Jury instructions; Alternative theories; People v Bergevin; Prosecutorial error; Character evidence; Other acts; Unresponsive answers; People v Jackson; Restitution; Crime Victim’s Rights Act; MCL 780.766; Presentence investigation report (PSIR); People v Bowling; Moot probate conditions claim

The court held that defendant was not entitled to relief from his animal-cruelty and unlicensed-animal convictions, and that the restitution award was supported by the record. He was convicted after animal control found an adult dog and six puppies that appeared underweight, dirty, without food or water bowls, and in poor health. On appeal, the court first rejected defendant’s jury-instruction challenge because the prosecution proceeded on the theory that he failed to provide “sufficient food,” and where a statute lists “alternative ways for a jury to convict,” only one alternative must be proven. The court therefore held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to request definitions of neglect, sanitary conditions, or shelter because those definitions were not necessary to the prosecution’s theory, and counsel “need not make a futile objection.” It next rejected defendant’s prosecutorial-error claim based on references to prior animal-control contacts because the officer’s comment about “previous interactions and complaints” was not elicited for improper propensity purposes, the prosecutor did not ask about the content of those contacts, and “‘unresponsive answers from witnesses are generally not prosecutorial error.’” The court declined to address defendant’s challenge to probation conditions because records showed he had already been discharged from probation, making the issue moot. Finally, it upheld the $21,480 restitution order because the PSIR stated that the county animal shelter requested $270 for vaccinations and $21,210 for boarding seven dogs for 236 days. The court held that the trial court could rely on that factual basis because, at sentencing, the contents of the PSIR are treated as “‘presumptively accurate.’” Affirmed.