Driving while license suspended causing death; MCL 257.904(4); Failure to stop at scene of accident resulting in death; MCL 257.617; Fourth Amendment; Cell phone seizure; Plain-view doctrine; Search warrant; Particularity; People v Hughes; People v Carson; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Crash reconstruction expert; Discovery violation; Demonstrative exhibit; MCR 6.201(A)(6); Sentencing; Fifth Amendment; Refusal to admit guilt; Lack of remorse; OV 5; MCL 777.35; Psychological injury; People v Calloway

The court held that: 1) defendant’s cell phone was lawfully seized under the plain-view doctrine, 2) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek suppression of the phone evidence, 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an undisclosed crash-reconstruction diagram, and 4) resentencing was not required. He was convicted of driving while license suspended causing death and failing to stop after he struck and killed a 13-year-old pedestrian and left the scene. On appeal, the court held that the phone seizure was valid because police were lawfully in the home, the phone was in plain view, and its incriminating nature was immediately apparent where an anonymous tip, defendant’s vehicle, and defendant’s admission that he drove it gave officers probable cause to believe the phone contained evidence. The court also held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the phone search because, under the then-prevailing Hughes standard, the warrant was reasonably directed at evidence of the crash, and even under Carson, it was “more tailored” than the invalid warrant there. The court next held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert’s diagram because it was an undisclosed exhibit, and any error was harmless because the expert testified to the diagram’s substance. As to sentencing, the court acknowledged that some of the judge’s comments were “inappropriate” and unsupported by the record, but held that resentencing was not required because the record did not show defendant was penalized for exercising his Fifth Amendment rights, the sentence was within the guidelines, and OV 5 was properly scored based on the victim’s mother’s statement that “every day has been a struggle” for the family. Affirmed.