Judicial bias; People v Stevens; Exercise of reasonable control over the mode & order of interrogating witnesses & presenting evidence; People v Biddles; MRE 611(a); Trial court’s witness questioning; Plain error review; Expert testimony; MRE 702; Waiver; Prosecutorial error; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Factual predicate; Great weight of the evidence; CSC II under MCL 750.520c(2)(b); People v DeLeon; Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)

The court rejected defendant’s claims of judicial bias, prosecutorial error, and ineffective assistance of counsel. It concluded that he waived the issue of a doctor’s (H) qualification as an expert, and even if the trial court erred in qualifying other witnesses as experts, he could not establish plain error affecting his substantial rights because H’s expert testimony was properly admitted. Finally, the court held that defendant’s CSC II conviction was not against the great weight of the evidence. He first took issue with the trial court’s instruction to the prosecutor to ask the victim more questions on a topic. But the “instruction was within its discretion to control the trial proceedings because it is clear the trial court’s goal was to effectively determine the truth from the victim’s testimony. Initially, [it] interjected to clarify the victim’s testimony, as is appropriate. [It] then noted it did not want to invade the prosecutor’s role, but instructed the prosecutor to continue clarifying that testimony. There is no indication the trial court was motivated by bias against defendant, especially considering [it] would have been within its rights to continue questioning the victim.” Its clarifying questions to a prosecution witness during cross-examination were also not inappropriate. Next, apart from the waiver, the court found that defendant’s argument as to H failed on the merits. H had been an ER “pediatrician for 14 years and was board-certified in pediatrics and pediatric emergency medicine. [H] explained that he was trained to treat sexually transmitted infections as part of his pediatric training and received specific training for sexual abuse and physical abuse as part of the national training for board-certified pediatric emergency medicine physicians. [H] was experienced in pediatric STDs and estimated that he had performed over 20 sexual assault” exams. Thus, his “knowledge, training, and experience qualified him to testify regarding how gonorrhea is transmitted.” As to defendant’s conviction under MCL 750.520c(2)(b), the victim (who was six years old at the time of the offense) testified that “defendant’s genital area touched her genital area underneath her underwear.” He was the only adult in her “life to test positive for gonorrhea.” Thus, the trial court’s finding in the bench trial “that the victim contracted gonorrhea from a sexual contact with defendant was reasonably supported by the evidence.” Affirmed.