Admission of a rap video; Relevance; MRE 401; People v. Mills; MRE 403; People v. Schaw; People v. Blackston; People v. Foster (Unpub.); Harmless error; People v. Lukity; Due process; Coleman v. Mitchell; Waiver of instructional error claim; People v. Kowalski; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Uphaus (On Remand); People v. Carbin; MRE 105; Failure to obtain an expert; People v. Dixon; A “substantial defense”; In re Ayres; Failure to request a voluntary manslaughter instruction; People v. Mendoza; Failure to make a futile request; People v. Unger; Denial of motion for a new trial; Alleged “finger-pointing” by a codefendant’s counsel during closing arguments; Failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing; Motion for a new trial based on a recanting witness’s affidavit; People v. Blair; Prosecutorial error; “Vouching”; People v. Thomas; Reference to a plea agreement containing a promise of truthful testimony; People v. Bahoda; Whether convictions for felony murder & the underlying armed robbery felony violated the protections against double jeopardy; People v. Ream; People v. Smith; Assault with intent to do great bodily harm (AWIGBH); Felon in possession (FIP)

In these consolidated appeals, the court held that the challenged rap video was relevant and, as used in this joint trial, was not unfairly prejudicial under MRE 403. Further, it did not violate defendant-Slaughter-Butler’s due process rights. The court also rejected both defendants’ ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Slaughter-Butler’s motions for a new trial. Slaughter-Butler was convicted of felony murder, armed robbery, three counts of AWIGBH, and felony-firearm. Defendant-Overstreet was convicted of the same crimes and FIP. Four men were shot and one killed during a robbery. At trial, L and H testified that another man (Foster) had planned the robbery and that they, along with the defendants here, participated in it. The court concluded that “the trial court abused its discretion in holding that the rap video was relevant to Slaughter-Butler’s intent because it was a celebration, by the participants, of the commission of violent crimes and robberies.” The video was played for the jury once, and after reviewing it, the court found “it would have been impossible for the jury to understand the lyrics, except for a few select words, after hearing it just one time.” However, because L and H “offered relevant testimony, the question whether they testified truthfully and accurately was itself relevant.” They testified that they were in a rap group, and that the group “included Foster and Slaughter-Butler. It was undisputed that these four men, but not Overstreet, were in the rap video.” Thus, it “had a tendency to make it more likely than not that a close connection” existed between “the testifying codefendants and Slaughter-Butler that did not exist” between L, H, and Overstreet. Because L and H “attributed an apparent greater culpability to Slaughter-Butler than to Overstreet, the rap video had a tendency to make it more likely than not” that they “were testifying truthfully and accurately.” The court noted that the “basis for admitting the video in this case was entirely different” than in Foster’s case, and it was “not constrained to reach the same conclusion” as in his appeal (that its admission was erroneous). Further, any “evidentiary error was harmless.” Affirmed.