Admission of a redacted version of a plea hearing transcript; MRE 106; Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object; Sufficiency of the evidence for a child sexually abusive activity (CSAA) conviction; MCL 750.145c(2)(a); Proof defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the girl was less than 18 years old; Sentencing; Reasonable & proportionate; Child sexually abusive material (CSAM)

The court concluded the trial court erred in admitting a redacted plea hearing transcript, but held that the error did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. Also, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Further, there was sufficient evidence to convict him of CSAA. Finally, he did not overcome the presumption that his “within guidelines sentence is reasonable and proportionate.” He was convicted of CSAA, possession of CSAM, and using a computer to commit a crime. He was sentenced to 160 to 240 months for CSAA and using a computer to commit a crime, and 24 to 48 months for CSAM, to be served concurrently. Defendant argued “that the trial court erred in admitting a redacted version of [his friend W’s] plea hearing transcript such that the trial court violated MRE 106, and defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.” He further asserted “that the jury should have been made aware of the redacted portions of the transcript that indicated [W] pleaded guilty in exchange for the dismissal of” a CSC I charge. The court held that while defendant was “correct that the redacted version of the plea transcript read to the jury omitted [W’s] sentencing agreement, it did not render defendant’s trial unfair.” It noted that because he and W “were both charged with CSAA, it was reasonable for the trial court to assume that [W’s] possible sentence for CSAA might influence defendant’s jury. Therefore, it was reasonable to omit any mention of [W’s] possible sentence so as not to influence the jury in defendant’s trial.” But the court held that “the trial court erred in admitting the transcript in violation of the Confrontation Clause.” Given this error, it had to thoroughly examine the record to determine whether it was “‘clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.’” The court noted that at “trial, the prosecution presented evidence that the video constituting CSAM was found on defendant’s phone.” Detective M “testified that she recognized [W] in the video and defendant’s voice narrating the video.” Further, another witness (AF) “identified defendant as the person who recorded the video. But the strongest evidence against defendant was his own testimony in which he admitted to taking the video of [W] having sex with underage AF. He admitted he did not ask her age, in violation of the CSAA statute requiring a reasonable inquiry into a person’s age before having sex. After a review of the sum of the evidence, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the trial court’s error.” Thus, the error was harmless and defendant was not entitled to a new trial. Affirmed.