Right to present a defense; Relevance; MRE 401; Hearsay; MRE 801(c); MRE 106; Expert witness; Distinguishing People v Thorpe; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to consult with or retain an expert witness; Failure to object to the trial court’s evidentiary ruling as to the right to present a defense; Cumulative effect of alleged errors

The court concluded that defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense was not “violated by the trial court’s evidentiary ruling to exclude his recorded police interview.” Also, the trial court did not err by permitting expert testimony where “it was not akin to Thorpe, and, contrary to [his] assertion on appeal, it did not ‘cross the line’ established by our Supreme Court.” Further, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finally, the cumulative effect of the alleged errors did not warrant reversal. He was convicted of CSC I and II. As to his constitutional right to present a defense, the court concluded that the “evidence was relevant, because it tended to make the existence of a fact that was of consequence to the determination of defendant’s wrongdoing more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” But the court held that “it constituted hearsay because it included statements ‘other than the one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.’” Further, although there were “exceptions and exclusions to the bar on hearsay, defendant fails on appeal to cite any exception or exclusion that applies to the statements that he made during his interview with police.” Moreover, the court held that there was “no applicable exception or exclusion that would allow this evidence to bypass MRE 802.” Thus, in order for his “statements to be admissible, such statements must have been admissible through a different means.” Defendant claimed that this evidence was admissible under MRE 106. “The trial court properly determined that his entire recorded interview with police was inadmissible under MRE 106 because MRE 106 was inapplicable.” The court noted that the “prosecution did not introduce any portion of a written or recorded statement, but rather, questioned [a detective] about his recollection of the interview that he conducted with defendant.” The fact that the “police interview was recorded does not automatically implicate MRE 106 because the prosecution never sought to introduce defendant’s recorded interview as evidence itself.” Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the evidence and he could not “establish that his entire recorded interview constituted admissible evidence.” The court held that because “the right to present a defense extends only to relevant and admissible evidence,” he could not “establish that the trial court’s evidentiary ruling deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense.” Affirmed.