Malicious destruction of personal property; MCL 750.377a(1)(b)(i); Possession of bombs with unlawful intent; MCL 750.210(2)(a); Confrontation Clause; Former testimony; Unavailable witness; Physical infirmity; MRE 804(a)(4); MRE 804(b)(1); Crawford v Washington; People v Garland; Sentencing; People v Copeland; Presumptive proportionality; People v Brcic; People v Ventour

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the property owner’s preliminary-examination testimony at trial and that defendant failed to show his within-guidelines sentence for possessing explosives was disproportionate. Defendant was convicted after deputies responded to a disturbance, smelled chemicals, heard a scream from inside a garage, saw defendant approach with a box cutter, and later found a “very flammable” substance and a scratched truck. The court first held that the owner was unavailable under MRE 804(a)(4) because he had emergency gallbladder surgery shortly before trial, was taking opioids, had been vomiting, and was still within his doctor’s anticipated recovery period. These facts supported that he could not testify because of a “then-existing infirmity.” The court next held that admitting his preliminary-examination testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause or MRE 804(b)(1) because defendant had notice of the malicious-destruction charge before the examination, the owner testified about the truck’s value and repair cost, and defense counsel had an “opportunity and similar motive” to cross-examine him. The court reasoned that the Confrontation Clause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination “‘in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.’” Finally, the court held that defendant did not overcome the presumption that his 180-to-480-month sentence was proportionate where the trial court considered his possible “suicide by cop” motive, but also found he intended “to cause serious injury,” did everything he could “to cause harm and chaos,” and had an extensive criminal history relevant to rehabilitation. Affirmed.