Hearsay; Party admissions; Former MRE 801(d)(2); Excited utterances; Former MRE 803(2); People v Smith; Waiver; Plain error review; Lack of prejudice; Other acts evidence that defendant was previously on parole; MRE 404(b); People v Galloway; Identity; Unfair prejudice; Notice; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Not excusing a juror; Alibi defense investigation; Failure to raise hearsay objections; Factual predicate; Witness questioning; Closing argument; Representation at sentencing; Prosecutorial misconduct; Good-faith questioning

The court held that most of defendant’s claims of error had no merit, and that none of the others affected the outcome of the case. Thus, it affirmed his convictions of armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, FIP, and felony-firearm. On appeal, he first raised hearsay arguments. It found one of them waived, and as to another, the trial “court did not err by admitting the Facebook evidence because sufficient evidence was presented to support a finding that the items were what the prosecution claimed them to be, as required by MRE 901(a), which were Facebook pages affiliated with defendant.” And the messages contained in the pages were admissible as party admissions. Other statements were admissible as excited utterances. And even if it accepted his argument that a police witness’s testimony about a parole agent’s statements constituted hearsay, defendant could not show “that the testimony affected the outcome of the” trial. He did not establish as to any of his hearsay claims that he was entitled to relief under plain error review. The court also concluded that he failed to show that the trial court plainly erred in admitting evidence that he previously had been on parole. This “fact was material to establishing defendant’s identity as the perpetrator, and it was not unduly prejudicial when the jury was aware that” he was previously convicted of a felony. While the trial court erred in “admitting the evidence when the prosecution had not provided notice of its intent to admit” it, defendant could not satisfy “the plain-error standard because the error was not prejudicial.” The court noted that one victim testified that he identified defendant as one of the robbers in a photo lineup and that he identified him in person at a hearing. He also identified him “as one of the robbers at trial and testified that defendant was the same person he previously identified. Defendant’s description matched the description given by” the other victim during his 911 call. Defendant “failed to show that he would have been able to overcome this damning evidence if the” challenged evidence had not been admitted. His ineffective assistance claims also lacked merit.