Right to confrontation; Hearsay; MRE 403; Lay witness opinion testimony; MRE 701; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object; Failure to introduce expert testimony

The court held that defendant’s argument as to victim-SP’s (his minor step-grandchild) written testimony lacked merit, and that the error in admitting Detective W’s testimony about the victims’ specific statements did not require reversal. While the trial court erred by allowing defendant’s son, the father of victim-LL (defendant’s minor grandchild) and stepfather of SP, to give his opinion as to defendant’s guilt, this error was also not outcome-determinative. Finally, he was not entitled to relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He was convicted of CSC I and II. He “did not object, at trial, to SP’s testimony on the grounds that it violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine SP and he did effectively cross-examine SP regarding multiple issues. SP did not refuse to answer any of defendant’s questions, and defendant was able to elicit testimony that he later relied on to attack the credibility of another witness. Moreover, SP testified under oath at trial, she was available for cross-examination, defendant did cross-examine her, and the jury was allowed to observe her demeanor.” Thus, his argument had no merit. Next, W “repeated out-of-court statements that LL and SP made, regarding their disclosure of the sexual abuse that they suffered, when they filed the police report.” Even if the purpose of W’s “testimony was to provide the reason why he forwarded the report to another department, his testimony should have been restricted to provide that he spoke with the victims and received a report that was pertinent to the Sex Crimes unit, which was sufficient to establish the reason why he took the subsequent action.” The court found that W’s testimony as to “the specific statements that were provided by the victims was more prejudicial than probative because the jury very well might have had difficulty limiting that testimony to the purpose of understanding why” W forwarded the report. But defendant did not show that it was “more probable than not that the alleged error was outcome-determinative . . . .” The court noted that “both victims testified about the sexual abuse that they suffered at the hands of defendant. Specifically, LL was able to provide detailed testimony regarding the abuse, and defendant was able to cross-examine each victim to impeach their credibility.” Further, W’s “testimony did not vouch for the victims’ testimonies or state that he believed” them. Affirmed.