People v. Buie, 298 Mich. App. 50

Buie was convicted of two counts of first-degree CSC with a victim under 13, three counts of CSC with a weapon, and a felony-firearm offense; sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to life terms for CSC and 2 years for firearm.
This is Buie’s third appeal; prior remands required the trial court to address video-conferencing testimony and good-cause/consent findings under MCR 6.006(C).
On remand, the trial court allowed two-way video testimony; the Supreme Court later reversed, finding Buie had waived confrontation rights; remaining issues were sent back for appellate consideration.
Factual summary: three female victims (BS and two minors) were assaulted; DNA and medical testimony linked Buie to the crimes; prior LB sexual-assault incident against a minor also occurred with similar modus operandi.
In remand proceedings, various trial issues were raised, including voir dire presence, counsel performance, substitute counsel, and admissibility of other-acts evidence under MCL 768.27a.
The appellate panel upheld convictions, finding no reversible error on the remaining issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of presence during voir dire	Buie did not knowingly waive presence; removal violated rights.	Defendant volunteered to be excused; conduct not a knowing waiver.	No reversible error; absence brief, returnable; no plain error affecting outcome.
Effect of temporary absence on trial fairness	Absent during voir dire prejudiced right to be present.	Brief, non-prejudicial absence could not affect outcome.	No prejudice; overwhelming evidence of guilt; no reversal required.
Effective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to meet before trial and at sentencing; ineffective assistance.	Counsel ineffective due to lack of pretrial meetings and strategy; ineffective at sentencing.	Not established; record shows counsel pursued valid theory, cross-examined effectively, and defendant cooperated minimally.
denial of substitute counsel	Court should have appointed substitute counsel due to breakdown in attorney-client communication.	Good cause existed for substitution; breakdown evidenced.	No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to show breakdown justifying substitution; continued representation was reasonable.
Admission of other-acts evidence (LB testimony)	LB testimony admissible under MCL 768.27a to show propensity.	Unpreserved or improper under MRE 404(b) and Ex Post Facto; prejudicial.	Properly admitted under MCL 768.27a; not violative of Ex Post Facto; not reversible under MRE 404(b).

People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain-error standard for unpreserved constitutional error)
People v Mallory, 421 Mich 229 (1984) (right to be present during voir dire and waiver principles)
People v Montgomery, 64 Mich App 101 (1975) (waiver of presence requires knowing intent)
People v Swan, 394 Mich 451 (1975) (defendant may waive presence by interruptive conduct)
People v Brown, 46 Mich App 592 (1973) (valid waiver requires knowledge and intentional decision)
Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973) (standard for ineffective assistance claims and ginther review)
People v Pattison, 276 Mich App 613 (2007) (MCL 768.27a admissibility balancing in minor-sex-offense cases)
People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450 (2012) (MCL 768.27a applicability and MRE 403 balancing)
People v Meyers (On Remand), 124 Mich App 148 (1983) (defendant cooperation and substitute counsel considerations)
People v Cumbus, 143 Mich App 115 (1985) (attorney-client breakdown and substitution standards)