Hearsay; Right of confrontation; Statements offered to explain why the police did what they did; People v Lewis; Reliance on information in the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN); Warrantless arrest; MCL 764.14(1)(e); Validity of an arrest warrant; Waiver; Sufficiency of the evidence for a resisting & obstructing a police officer conviction (MCL 750.81d(1)); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object & to request a limiting jury instruction; Instructions on the elements of resisting and obstructing & when an arrest is legal; Prejudice

The court rejected defendant’s hearsay and Confrontation Clause arguments and held that there was sufficient evidence to support her resisting and obstructing an officer conviction. Her ineffective assistance of counsel claims also failed, as the court found that even assuming deficient performance, she did not show any prejudice. She contended that statements made by the arresting officers’ superiors “—that there was a valid arrest warrant and it was entered in LEIN—constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause.” But under Lewis, as defendant conceded, “the statements could have permissibly been offered ‘to explain why the police did what they did after receiving the report.’ As such, [they] ‘may be properly admitted for purposes other than to show the truth of the matter asserted, such as to show the listeners’ knowledge or motives if relevant to an issue in the case.’” The statements here “explained why the arresting officers went to the house after being informed of the arrest warrant, and as defendant notes, an officer may rely on LEIN information as the basis for an arrest.” The court added that, assuming the statements were offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, an arrest may occur without a warrant under MCL 764.14(1)(e). One of the arresting officers (T) “was informed by two authoritative sources there was an arrest warrant and it was active on LEIN. The statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because statements ‘offered to show why police offers acted as they did [are] not hearsay.’” The court found that defendant failed to show plain error affecting any substantial rights as to admission of the statements. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, she challenged the third element, asserting that T “acted unlawfully because the arrest warrant was invalid. This argument lacks merit, as the jury could determine [T] acted lawfully when arresting defendant, as [T] was informed by the superior officers that there was a valid arrest warrant for defendant, which was verified by LEIN. The admissible evidence showed that the arresting officer arrested defendant because there was an outstanding arrest warrant, providing the officer with reasonable cause to believe defendant had committed a crime,” satisfying this element. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, allowed a reasonable jury to find T acted lawfully. Affirmed.