Right of confrontation; Hearsay objection; Testimony about past & future cocaine delivery; Giving a phone number; Plain error review; Whether statements should have been excluded under MRE 403; Distinguishing People v Wilkins

The court held that defendant’s confrontation rights were not violated by a police witness’s testimony because he did not show that hearsay was erroneously admitted. He also failed to establish that statements made by a nontestifying individual should have been excluded under MRE 403. Thus, the court affirmed his drug conspiracy and firearms convictions. While executing a search warrant at another individual’s (S) apartment, police found a kilogram of cocaine, multiple firearms, and $20,000 in cash. S offered to cooperate while he was in jail, and met with a police detective (G). S did not testify at trial, but G testified about what S told him. On appeal, defendant complained about G’s testimony concerning (1) S’s “description of how he obtained cocaine in the past and his subsequent offer to ‘order up’ ‘big amounts’; and (2) the disclosure of” S’s phone number. As to the former, the court concluded it “was not hearsay evidence subject to exclusion under MRE 801(c), and thus its admission did not implicate the Confrontation Clauses. A party may introduce an out-of-court statement not for the truth-of-the-matter asserted but rather ‘to show the effect on the hearer . . . when this effect is relevant.’” The record showed that the prosecution “offered this ‘background information’ to explain why [G] acted in response to it by allowing [S] to place phone calls to defendant using [S’s] cell phone from jail. [S] was not a known informant to law enforcement, and [G] testified that they frequently hear potential informants offer big promises without following through—'we get lied to so much.’ Because ‘a statement offered to show why police officers acted as they did is not hearsay,’” the court found that allowing G “to explain that context to the jury rendered it non-hearsay.” Further, it found no plain error requiring reversal as to the phone number. The “giving of a phone number is not an out-of-court statement that establishes a person’s identity.” The court also rejected defendant’s MRE 403 argument, finding that S’s statements “both served to explain why law-enforcement officials acted as they did and were highly probative in coloring the trafficking conspiracy.” In addition, “defendant admitted to participating in the cocaine’s delivery, the jury heard [his] calls with [S] arranging the deal, and electronic evidence recovered from defendant’s phone . . . confirmed details of the transaction at issue.”