Expert testimony; MRE 704; Human trafficking; MCL 750.462d(b); MCL 750.462f(1)(b); Drug-profile evidence; People v Murray; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Jury unanimity; CSC I; Personal injury; People v Asevedo; Sentencing; OVs 4, 7, 8, & 11; Resentencing

The court held that defendant’s convictions should be affirmed, but that resentencing was required on his CSC I conviction because OVs 7 and 8 were improperly scored. He was convicted of CSC I and III, human trafficking, accepting the earnings of a prostitute, and keeping a drug house. On appeal, the court first held that the addiction expert’s testimony was proper because he “limited his testimony to explaining a medical addiction to a controlled substance and its effects on a user’s brain,” and did not opine on defendant’s guilt or state of mind. Thus, the court also held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object because ineffective assistance “cannot be predicated on the failure to make a frivolous or meritless motion.” The court next found that some of the sex-trafficking expert’s testimony was improper because it “blurred the line” between expert testimony and legal conclusion by comparing defendant’s conduct to a “typical pimp structure” and suggesting the force-or-coercion element was satisfied. But the error was not outcome-determinative because victim testimony, defendant’s admissions, evidence that he controlled drugs and movement, and Cash App evidence “strongly supported defendant engaged in trafficking.” The court also rejected defendant’s unanimity-instruction argument because, under Asevedo, “bodily injury and mental anguish are not alternative theories upon which a jury is required to make independent findings.” As to sentencing, the court upheld the OV 4 score because the victim testified to depression, anxiety, lack of safety around men, and medication use. The court also upheld the 25-point score for OV 11. But it found that OV 7 was improperly scored because the victim’s testimony did “not establish excessive brutality and savagery,” and OV 8 was improperly scored because there was no evidence the victim’s bedroom was “a place of greater danger” or that she was held captive beyond the time necessary for the sentencing offense. Because the 65-point reduction changed the guidelines range, defendant was entitled to resentencing. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing for CSC I.