Due process; Prosecution’s failure to produce text messages involving one of the victims; Statement that defendant made to a victim during a break in the trial; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Exclusion of prior accusations; Discovery of a victim’s juvenile history; Sentencing; Consecutive sentencing; MCL 752.797(4); Proportionality

The court held that defendant was not denied his right to due process because the trial court did not (1) abuse its discretion in fashioning a remedy for the alleged discovery violation and (2) err in denying his motion for a mistrial on the basis the defense was not notified of a statement defendant had made to victim-EC during a trial break. He also was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Further, his constitutional rights were not violated by the trial court’s refusal to admit evidence that one of the victims had accused another church member of sexual assault. He was also not denied his due process right to a fair trial when the trial court refused to allow discovery of victim-CD’s “juvenile history or the use of any juvenile adjudication of CD for impeachment.” Finally, the court upheld his sentences. He was convicted of CSC II and IV, aggravated indecent exposure, disseminating sexually explicit matter to a minor, and using a computer to commit a crime. He was sentenced to 5 to 15 years for each CSC II conviction and to 16 to 24 months for each of the other convictions. “The sentence for using a computer to commit a crime was ordered to be served consecutively to the sentences for the other six convictions, which are to be served concurrently to one another.” The case arose out of defendant’s sexual abuse of multiple boys. He argued, among other things, that his “right to due process was violated by the prosecution’s failure to provide certain text messages involving CD until the third day of trial and that the trial court failed to fashion a suitable remedy for the alleged discovery violation.” The court noted that the “prosecution did not provide defendant with text messages that CD’s mother shared with the police until the third day of trial. The text messages included communications involving CD’s mother, CD, and defendant. The police report reflected that CD’s mother had provided the text messages to the police.” Defendant did “not dispute that the police report had been provided to the parties. But the text messages themselves were not provided to the parties until the third day of trial. When defense counsel brought this matter to the trial court’s attention on the third day of trial, the trial court afforded defense counsel an hour and a half to review the text messages. Defense counsel did not suggest that this was insufficient time. Moreover, the text messages concerned CD, who was the victim only with respect to the aggravated indecent exposure charge. CD did not testify until the fourth day of trial, and the trial court indicated that CD’s mother could be recalled on the fourth day of trial.” The court concluded that the “trial court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning a remedy for the alleged discovery violation.” Further, defendant “failed to establish that he was denied access to any material or exculpatory evidence.” Affirmed.