Motion for a mistrial; Officer testimony regarding credibility; People v Lowrey; Referring to a complaining witness as a victim; People v Wisniewski; “Victim”; MCL 750.520a(s); Lay testimony; MRE 701; People v Brown; Prejudice; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 7 (aggravated physical abuse); MCL 777.37(1); People v Rosa; Proportionality

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial, and that the trial court did not err in scoring OV 7 as to Count 3. However, because it did err as to Count 2, the court vacated as to that count and remanded, but otherwise affirmed defendant’s convictions and sentences. He was convicted of CSC I, CSC III, and AWIGBH, arising out of 3 sexual assaults and a stabbing he committed against the victim, KC, whom he dated for several months when she was 16 years old and he was 18. The trial court sentenced him to 25 to 50 years for each CSC I, 8 to 15 for CSC III, and 5 to 10 for AWIGBH. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial. Detective M’s testimony did “not vouch for KC’s credibility or suggest that [he] had special knowledge of her truthfulness; it merely provide[d] context for the steps he undertook during his investigation.” In addition, “by stating that defendant admitted he was a liar, Detective [M] did not improperly comment on defendant’s credibility; he merely recited defendant’s own statements from the interview.” Further, his “testimony regarding defendant’s nonverbal body language did not constitute improper commentary on defendant’s credibility.” Moreover, Detective M did not “invade the province of the jury by testifying about sexual offender recidivism statistics.” Finally, defendant could not show prejudice. He next argued that the trial court erred by assessing 50 points for OV 7 as to his two CSC I convictions. The prosecution conceded on appeal that the trial court erred as to Count 2 but not as to Count 3. Consistent with that concession, and because the correction altered the guidelines range, it vacated as to Count 2 but affirmed as to Count 3. “That defendant trapped KC in the vehicle and strangled her supports an inference that he ‘engaged in conduct beyond the minimum required to commit the offense’ and ‘intended to make [KC’s] fear or anxiety greater by a considerable amount.’” Finally, considering the length of defendant’s “departure, the record evidence of [his] escalating violent behavior, and the trial court’s explanation of its rationale, [he] has not established that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an upward departure sentence with respect to Count 3.”