(concurring). I concur in the result and analysis of the majority opinion. I write separately because I will not join footnotes 8 and 17, in which Justice CAVANAGH “dissents” from the Carines1 plain-error analysis in his own opinion. Justice CAVANAGH is entitled to such views, but his opposition to this Court’s precedent and preservation of his view are better placed in a concurring statement.
People v Cannes, 460 Mich 750; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).