Self-defense; MCL 780.972; People v Dupree; Admission of testimony under MCL 768.27c; MRE 403; MRE 801(d)(1)(B) (prior consistent statement); Harmless error; Sentencing; Presumptive proportionality of a within-guidelines sentence; “Unusual circumstances”

The court held that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to disprove defendant’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt, and it rejected his challenge to the admission of a police witness’s testimony about the victim’s disclosures. Concluding that he failed to show “unusual circumstances,” the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a within-guidelines sentence. He was convicted of AWIGBH, felonious assault, and domestic violence. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 3 to 10 years for AWIGBH and 2 to 4 years for felonious assault, with a 90-day jail sentence for domestic violence. As to his self-defense claim, while he “and the victim provided significantly different versions of the assault, the jury decides credibility.” The court noted that her “testimony was corroborated by the prosecution’s other witnesses, as well as the number and locations of” her stab wounds. As to the police witness’s testimony under MCL 768.27c, because it “presented relatively minimal unfair prejudice and had some probative value, the trial court did not plainly err by admitting it notwithstanding MRE 403.” But the court noted “MRE 801(d)(1)(B), and the various other hearsay exceptions under the rules of evidence, are not intended to allow admission of all prior consistent statements.” It found the testimony here was used “to reinforce the victim’s testimony, not necessarily to rebut a charge of recent fabrication, influence, or motive, as contemplated by MRE 801(d)(1)(B).” However, given that “MCL 768.27c is a substantive rule of evidence that supersedes the otherwise-applicable hearsay rules enacted by” the Supreme Court, the trial court correctly ruled that the “testimony was admissible under MCL 768.27c notwithstanding MRE 801 and 802.” The court added that, even if it was inadmissible, any error was harmless given the victim’s testimony and a neighbor’s corroborating testimony. Finally, defendant’s minimum sentence was near the low end of the guidelines, and the court did not believe that, in this case, his “advanced age, medical conditions, and lack of criminal history” were unusual circumstances warranting a downward departure. Affirmed.