Right to present a complete defense; Hearsay; Unavailable declarant exception; MRE 804(b)(1); Whether the prosecution had a similar motive & opportunity to cross-examine the witness; People v Farquharson; Right to a properly instructed jury; Flight instruction; M Crim JI 4.4; Prosecutorial misconduct; Comparing People v Buckey; Cumulative error; Comparing People v Dobek

The court held that (1) defendant’s right to present a complete defense was not infringed, (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by reading the flight instruction under M Crim JI 4.4, (3) the prosecution did not commit misconduct, and (4) he could not show a cumulative effect of any errors that denied him a fair trial. He was convicted of possession of less than 25 grams of heroin and fentanyl, FIP, felony-firearm, and maintaining a drug house after a raid on his home. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court misapplied MRE 804(b)(1) and deprived him of his right to present a defense when it refused to admit his codefendant-turned-witness’s (Arnold) full testimony from her plea hearing given that she passed away before the trial. “Once Arnold had established her own guilt, she faced no further consequences and lacked the incentive to speak truthfully. Determining that the prosecution did not have a similar motive or opportunity to cross-examine Arnold was not outside the range of principled outcomes, and, therefore, was not an abuse of discretion.” Defendant was not “precluded in any way from making a complete defense because he did, in fact, make the defense he claims to have been prevented from making.” The court also rejected his claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it gave the jury a flight, concealment, escape, or attempted escape instruction. “A rational view of the evidence . . . could lead a person to believe [he] knew there was a warrant out for his arrest, and therefore, wished he stayed inside at home the day he was arrested so he could have avoided arrest. Similarly, the conversations [he] had with his sister over the phone, where he insisted he would not attempt to flee if released on bond, can rationally indicate the idea of fleeing had crossed [his] mind and was, at least at one time, under consideration.” The court next rejected his contention that the prosecution committed misconduct by questioning him about whether a police officer lied and by making inflammatory statements during closing arguments. “Even if the prosecution’s conduct was prejudicial, it would not have changed the outcome in this case given the copious amounts of evidence presented during trial that defendant possessed firearms, possessed drugs, and maintained a drug house.” Finally, the court rejected his argument that the cumulative effect of the prosecution’s errors was so prejudicial that it warranted a new trial. “While the prosecution asked improper questions during defendant’s cross-examination and made improper comments during closing arguments, neither resulted in unfair prejudice[.]” Affirmed.