Docket No. 320014 - Claim that the trial court violated the defendant’s constitutional right to due process by allowing jurors to ask questions of witnesses; MCR 2.513(I); People v. Heard; Stare decisis; Trademark Props. v. Federal Nat’l Mtg. Ass’n; Jury instruction on a manner of sexual penetration for CSC I that was not charged; Waiver; People v. Chapo; People v. Kowalski; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to the jury instruction; Claim of enhanced sentence based on facts not found by the jury; Alleged violation of Alleyne v. U.S.; Apprendi v. New Jersey; United States v. Booker; Blakely v. Washington; People v. Herron; Docket No. 316983 – “Other acts” evidence; MRE 404(b); Counsel’s failure to object to the other acts evidence; Advising defendant not to testify on the basis that he had a prior conviction; Factual predicate requirement; People v. Hoag; Docket No. 316314 - Jury instruction as to the consideration of prior inconsistent statements; MRE 801(d)(1)(A); People v. Malone; Whether CJI2d 4.5(2) was applicable; Prosecutorial error; People v. Dobek; “Vouching”; People v. Thomas; People v. Seals; Comment on defendant’s demeanor in the courtroom during trial; Claim that his due process rights were violated when the trial court admonished defense counsel on the record in the jury’s presence during deliberations; Cain v. Department of Corrs.; In re MKK; People v. Conyers; Sentencing; Whether the trial court sufficiently justified its sentences departing from the applicable guidelines ranges; People v. Smith; People v. Anderson; MCL 771.21(2); MCL 771.14; People v. Lopez; MCL 771.14(2)(e)(i)

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions in these consolidated cases, but vacated his sentence in Docket No. 316314 and remanded for further proceedings in that case. In Docket No. 316314, he appealed his jury trial convictions of CSC I and felonious assault. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of 25 to 50 years for the CSC I conviction and 30 to 48 months for the felonious assault conviction. In Docket No. 316983, he appealed his jury trial conviction of felonious assault. In Docket No. 320014, he appealed his jury trial convictions of kidnapping and two counts of CSC I. In Docket No. 320014 he argued, among other things, that the trial court violated his constitutional right to due process by allowing jurors to ask questions of witnesses during the trial. Defendant argued that the questions showed that the “jury was actively involved in seeking out facts, filling in any perceived gaps in the prosecutor’s proofs, and deliberating before the conclusion of the case.” However, in Heard the Michigan Supreme Court explained that “the purpose of allowing jurors to ask questions is to ‘help unravel otherwise confusing testimony’ and to ‘aid the fact-finding process.’” Also, the trial court “instructed the jury that it could not discuss the case until the trial court sent it to the jury room for that purpose.” Defendant did not offer any evidence that the jury began deliberating before the close of the trial and thus, failed to show plain error affecting his substantial rights as to the juror questions. In Docket Number 316983, the court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. In Docket No. 316314, the court agreed that “the trial court gave no explanation for the particular departures” it imposed in sentencing defendant and “failed to justify why the sentences imposed are more proportionate than sentences within the guidelines recommendation would have been.”