People of Michigan v. James Michael Maglinger, 331040

Defendant James Michael Maglinger was convicted by a jury of first-degree child abuse for injuries his two-month-old son sustained on January 5, 2013, and sentenced to 135–300 months.
Medical testimony established the infant suffered a skull fracture, bilateral subdural hematomas/hemorrhages, and multiple rib fractures; an expert classified the injuries as abusive head trauma inconsistent with a short accidental fall.
Defendant's theory: while holding the infant and reaching for bottle liners, the child kicked away, fell from defendant’s arms, and struck his head on the counter or hard floor.
At trial defense counsel requested defendant stand to display his height; the prosecutor objected with the remark, “If he wants to take the stand, he may,” prompting a motion for mistrial which the court denied.
Defense sought to call Kathleen Thomas, a foster-care worker who observed the child nearly two years later, to show lack of ongoing impairment; the trial court excluded her testimony as not relevant to injuries on the charged date.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor’s remark did not require a mistrial given curative jury instructions and no timely objection, and (2) exclusion of Thomas’s testimony did not violate the right to present a defense because it was not relevant to the charged conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s remark about taking the stand required a mistrial	Remark was a permissible objection to an improper physical demonstration	Remark improperly commented on defendant’s right not to testify and was prejudicial	Denied mistrial: remark was contextual objection, jury instructions cured any prejudice; no abuse of discretion
Whether exclusion of foster-care worker’s testimony violated right to present a defense	Testimony irrelevant to whether serious physical harm occurred on charged date	Testimony showed lack of ongoing impairment and was necessary to present defense	No constitutional violation: testimony not relevant to injuries on Jan 5, 2013; exclusion proper
Whether jury could infer guilt from defendant not testifying	N/A (prosecution sought to block an exhibit/demonstration)	Such inference is impermissible and prejudicial	Instruction that defendant has absolute right not to testify was adequate to dispel prejudice
Standard of review for excluded witness and preserved objections	N/A	Defendant claims constitutional error requiring reversal	Claim not preserved as constitutional argument; review for plain error and none affecting substantial rights found

People v. Roscoe, 303 Mich. App. 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (evaluate prosecutor remarks in context)
People v. Jansson, 116 Mich. App. 674 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982) (comments on defendant's failure to testify are improper)
People v. Buckey, 424 Mich. 1 (Mich. 1985) (prohibits implying defendant's silence indicates guilt)
People v. Schaw, 288 Mich. App. 231 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (mistrial granted only for prejudicial irregularities; review for abuse of discretion)
People v. Breidenbach, 489 Mich. 1 (Mich. 2011) (jurors presumed to follow instructions)
People v. Abraham, 256 Mich. App. 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (instructions presumed to cure most errors)
People v. Long, 246 Mich. App. 582 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (instructions can dispel prejudice)
People v. Mann, 288 Mich. App. 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (defense must request curative instruction when prosecutor errs)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (Mich. 1999) (standard for plain-error review)
People v. Adamski, 198 Mich. App. 133 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) (constitutional right to present a defense exists but is subject to evidentiary rules)
People v. Hayes, 421 Mich. 271 (Mich. 1985) (trial fairness requires compliance with evidentiary rules)
People v. Arenda, 416 Mich. 1 (Mich. 1982) (rules of evidence govern admissibility despite constitutional rights)
People v. Danto, 294 Mich. App. 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (right to present a defense extends only to relevant evidence)