Anonymous jury claim; People v Hanks; People v Williams; Referring to jurors by number; Lack of a cautionary instruction; Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27b; People v Cameron; “Domestic violence” (MCL 768.27b(6)(a)(i)); MRE 403; Due process challenge; People v Watkins; People v Mack; Prosecutorial error; Opening statement; Drawing negative inferences from defendant’s exercise of his rights to a trial & to remain silent; Eliciting evidence not included in the MRE 404(b) & MCL 768.27b notice; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object; Plain error review

The court held that defendant failed to establish plain error as to his anonymous jury and prosecutorial error claims, and it rejected his related ineffective assistance of counsel claims. It also held that the trial court did not err in admitting the challenged other acts evidence under MCL 768.27b, and that his due process challenge to that statute had no merit. Thus, it affirmed his convictions of felony murder, first-degree child abuse, concealing the death of an individual, and third-offense aggravated domestic violence. The case arose from the death of his 16-month-old son. As to his anonymous jury claim, the jurors were identified by numbers, but he did “not allege that any information about [them] was withheld from the parties, and the record is clear that both parties conducted extensive voir dire.” The court concluded that the jury here “was anonymous only in a literal sense; therefore, none of the dangers of an ‘anonymous jury’ were implicated[.]” As to the admission of evidence under MCL 768.27b, the court determined that it “was relevant, and any prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh the evidence’s probative value.” The evidence concerned injuries sustained by a 23-month-old child who had been left in defendant’s care. The court found that it (1) clearly met “the definition of ‘domestic violence’ under MCL 768.27b(6)(a)(i), (2) occurred within 10 years of the charged offense as required by MCL 768.27b(4), and (3) was highly relevant to show defendant’s tendency to assault a young child left in his care. MRE 403 did not preclude admission of this evidence because its presentation was brief and not nearly as graphic or violent as the presentation of evidence regarding the charged offenses.” The trial court also minimized its prejudicial effect with jury instructions. Finally, defendant failed to show that any prosecutorial “error affected his substantial rights or denied him a fair trial[,]” or any prejudice from his trial counsel’s failure to object.