Prosecutorial misconduct; Voir dire; MCR 6.412(C); People v Sawyer; Curative instruction; Lay opinion testimony; MRE 701; Expert opinion testimony; MRE 702; Character testimony; MRE 404(a)(1)

The court held that the prosecution did not commit misconduct and a detective (S) did not provide improper testimony. Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, CCW, FIP, and felony-firearm for shooting and killing the victim during an altercation in Kalamazoo. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the prosecution improperly injected the issue of gun violence in Kalamazoo during voir dire, its examination of S, and closing argument. “Taken in full context, the prosecutor’s questions regarding gun violence and defendant’s role in it were asked to elicit the jurors’ biases, not to invoke the jurors’ biases. That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the prosecutor’s questions and the trial court’s follow-up questions resulted in the excusal of a juror who expressed bias against someone accused of gun violence.” Further, even if “the prosecutor’s voir dire questions and comments invoked some bias against defendant, reversal would not be warranted. Any potential prejudice was mitigated by the trial court’s instructions, which emphasized that the jury’s ‘sole responsibility’ was to base its verdict on the evidence and the law.” In addition, “the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct by asking [S] when and how he became the lead investigator in the case.” Defendant failed to show that the “questioning was anything other than a good-faith effort to introduce relevant evidence. Further, after [S] mentioned the volume of gun violence in Kalamazoo, the prosecutor promptly redirected questioning to the four detectives working on the case.” Moreover, the statements made during closing argument established that the prosecutor “was addressing the evidence regarding defendant’s intent to kill” the victim and countering his self-defense claim. “The prosecutor did not explicitly urge the jury to convict as a civic duty.” And any “potential prejudice was cured when the trial court instructed the jury to base its verdict ‘only on the evidence and [the trial court’s] instructions on the law.’” Finally, the court rejected defendant’s claim that S “provided improper expert opinion testimony, gave impermissible character and profile testimony, and invaded the province of the jury while narrating” video footage. It found that the testimony “was proper lay testimony under MRE 701.” His statements “were based on his perceptions of the video and experience investigating violent crimes.” And his “testimony did not require scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge[.]” In addition, it “was helpful to the determination of a fact” in issue and did not invade the province of the jury. Further, the prosecution did not use it to prove that defendant “acted in conformance with the traits of violent felons or any of the other people who” S previously surveilled. Affirmed.