Venue; MCL 600.1646; MCL 769.26; People v Houthoofd; People v Fisher; Sufficiency of the evidence; Witness interference; MCL 750.122(6); People v Greene; Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27b; MRE 404(b); Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; Sentencing; Consecutive sentences; MCL 768.7b(2); Distinguishing People v Norfleet

Holding that there were no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions and sentences. He was convicted of witness interference, conspiracy to commit witness interference, and CSC I and II, arising out of his sexual abuse of his stepson, JT, who grew up believing defendant was his biological father, as well as his attempt to get JT’s mother to stop cooperating with the authorities. The trial court sentenced him to 2 terms of 23 to 120 months for witness interference and conspiracy to commit witness interference, 300 to 480 months for CSC I, and 2 terms of 71 to 180 months CSC II, with the sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentences for witness interference and conspiracy to commit witness interference. On appeal, the court rejected his arguments that: (1) venue was improper; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the witness-interference convictions; (3) the trial court erred by allowing the admission of other acts evidence; and (4) the trial court insufficiently articulated its basis for consecutive sentencing. First, there was “simply no basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice occurred by virtue of the trial’s being held in Ingham County. Considering the evidence that was introduced in this matter, it would not be reasonable to conclude that the outcome would have been different if the CSC I charge had been tried in Clinton County, instead of Ingham County.” Second, the letter he sent to JT’s mother “could reasonably be interpreted as a willful attempt to interfere with JT’s ability to testify at the trial.” And she “testified that she perceived the letter as threatening and intimidating.” Third, the “other acts gave a fuller picture of defendant’s history and shed light on the likelihood of defendant’s having committed the charged crimes–and no abuse of discretion is apparent with regard to the trial court’s ruling.” And fourth, “the trial court did not, contrary to defendant’s argument, run afoul of Norfleet wherein this Court discussed articulation requirements for consecutive sentencing.”