To the extent defendant argues that admission of the evidence violated the rules of evidence, we review this preserved evidentiary error for an abuse of discretion. People v. Burns, 494 Mich. 104, 110, 832 N.W.2d 738 (2013). “A preserved error in the admission of evidence does not warrant reversal unless after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.”
"A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." People v Burns, 494 Mich 104, 110; 832 NW2d 738 (2013). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.
In an order entered May 18, 2018, the Michigan Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, vacated the portions of this Court's July 6, 2017 judgment that addressed whether defendant preserved his challenge to the admissibility of hearsay testimony under MRE 803A. The Michigan Supreme Court remanded to this Court to allow us to reconsider "the hearsay issue under the standard for preserved evidentiary error, see People v Burns, 494 Mich 104[; 832 NW2d 738] (2013), and for consideration of whether (1) the prosecutor "made known" to the defendant "the particulars" of the MRE 803A statement, and (2) the defendant was given a "fair opportunity" to prepare to meet the statement, as required by MRE 803A." People v Hamilton, ___ Mich ___; 911 NW2d 200 (2018) (Docket No. 156411).
Because these statements are "testimonial," and defendant preserved his constitutional claim of error in a motion prior to trial, we review any error in admitting the statements under the harmless error standard applicable to preserved constitutional errors, i.e., we must determine whether "beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction." People v Anderson (After Remand), 446 Mich 392, 404-406; 521 NW2d 538 (1994) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Giles v California, 554 US 353, 359-360, 366-367; 128 S Ct 2678; 171 L Ed 2d 488 (2008); People v Burns, 494 Mich 104, 111, 114; 832 NW2d 738 (2013); People v Jones, 270 Mich App 208, 211-212; 714 NW2d 362 (2006). STATEMENTS OF AUGUST 20, 2006 UNDER MRE 804(B)(2).
A statement offered against a party that has engaged in or encouraged wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.In People v Burns, 494 Mich 104, 110; 832 NW2d 738 (2013) our Supreme Court observed that "[a] defendant can forfeit his right to exclude hearsay by his own wrongdoing." The rule that emanated from Burns is commonly referred to as "the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing rule[ ]" and is 'based on the maxim that 'no one should be permitted to take advantage of his wrong.
The trial court ruled that Slappey's prior statements were admissible under MRE 804(b)(6) and did not violate William-Salmon's constitutional right of confrontation. In People v. Burns , 494 Mich. 104, 110-111, 832 N.W.2d 738 (2013), our Supreme Court explained: A defendant can forfeit his right to exclude hearsay by his own wrongdoing.
"Preliminary questions of law, including whether a rule of evidence precludes the admission of evidence, are reviewed de novo." People v Burns, 494 Mich 104, 110; 832 NW2d 738 (2013). MRE 404(b)(1) states:
"A preserved error in the admission of evidence does not warrant reversal unless after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative." People v Burns, 494 Mich 104, 110; 832 NW2d 738 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Specifically, defendant contends that the trial court erred by admitting Duhart's testimony regarding MD's disclosure under MRE 803A because the prosecution failed to establish a foundation for the admission of this evidence in several respects.
We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. People v Burns, 494 Mich 104, 110; 832 NW2d 738 (2013). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the court chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes."
" People v. Burns, 494 Mich. 104, 110; 832 N.W.2d 738 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Stated differently, "nonconstitutional, preserved evidentiary errors are not grounds for reversal unless they undermined the reliability of the verdict."