Hearsay statements by the interrogator that may require special attention.

“[W]here the proponent of the evidence offers an interrogator’s out-of-court statements that comment on a person’s credibility for the purpose of providing context to a defendant’s statements [(and, thus, are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted)], the interrogator’s statements are only admissible to the extent that the proponent of the evidence establishes that the interrogator’s statements are relevant to their proffered purpose. See MRE 401.” People v Musser, ___ Mich ___, ___ (2013). Despite being relevant, the statements may still be excluded under MRE 403 if “‘the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant substantially outweighs the probative value of [the statements.]” Musser, ___ Mich at ___, quoting People v Robinson, 417 Mich 661, 666 (1983). Thus, “a trial court must . . . evaluate the probative value of the out-of-court statements in providing context to a defendant’s statements and the resulting prejudice to a defendant before the interrogator’s out-of-court statements are presented to the jury.” Musser, ___ Mich at ___. In these cases, “courts must be mindful of the problems inherent in presenting the statements to the jury, especially in child-sexual-abuse cases.” Id. at ___. “[I]f an interrogator’s out-of-court statement is determined to be admissible for the purpose of providing context to a defendant’s statements, . . . the court, upon request, ‘shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope’ [pursuant to MRE 105.]” Musser, ___ Mich at ___. To that end, the court may “requir[e] the interrogating officer to testify at trial and paraphrase the statements he or she made that provoked a relevant statement by a defendant . . . [in order] to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial from the resulting prejudice of allowing the jury to hear the interrogator’s comments verbatim.” Id. at ___. Another option is to redact the statements.