Right to present a defense; Videoconference witness testimony; MCR 6.006(B)(4); MCR 2.407(C); Prosecutorial error; Leading questions; MRE 611(d)(1); Ineffective assistance of counsel

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s last-minute request to present a defense witness by videoconference, the prosecutor’s challenged questions did not warrant relief, and trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to them. Defendant was convicted of drug-delivery offenses and maintaining a drug house following controlled purchases by a confidential informant (CI). During trial, defense counsel asked to have a witness (N) testify by Zoom because she lacked transportation. The trial court denied the request. On appeal, the court noted that although a criminal defendant has the right to “a meaningful opportunity to present a defense,” that right “is not an absolute right” and remains subject to established procedural rules. MCR 6.006(B)(4) permitted remote testimony during a jury trial only in the trial court’s discretion after notice and an opportunity to be heard. Relevant MCR 2.407(C) factors supported denial here. The request came on the day N was scheduled to testify, the prosecutor lacked meaningful notice, exhibits would have been difficult to use remotely, and credibility was significant because N was expected to attack the CI’s reputation for truthfulness. The situation differed from the prosecution witness who had been permitted to testify remotely after a pretrial motion and who lived in Arizona. The court emphasized that the trial court “did not preclude the witness from testifying but rather denied his last-minute request for her to testify remotely.” As to prosecutorial error, the challenged questions either were unanswered after sustained objections, were not actually leading, or properly clarified prior testimony. Defendant showed no pattern of eliciting inadmissible evidence or resulting prejudice. His ineffective-assistance claim likewise failed because the underlying objections lacked merit or the questions could simply have been rephrased to elicit the same admissible testimony. Affirmed.