Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), or a new trial, with respect to the unlawful imprisonment
and interference with electronic communications causing injury convictions. The trial court’s
decision on a motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
People v Cress, 468
Mich 678, 691; 664 NW2d 174 (2003).
Defendant first argues that JNOV was warranted because his conviction for interfering
with electronic communications causing injury was against the great weight of the evidence and
supported by insufficient evidence. This issue is abandoned where defendant has not explained
or rationalized the basis for his claim. He argues in a cursory fashion, stating only that the victim
did not testify that defendant “allegedly destroyed the telephone by pulling it out of the wall for
the purpose of preventing her from communicating, which resulted in injury. She testified that
she did leave the home and use her cell phone and also told her youngest son, Tristand to call
911.” Defendant completely fails to address the evidence that was presented to support the
conviction, and he leaves it to this Court to discover and rationalize his argument, which we will
People v Kelly, 231 Mich App 627, 640-641; 588 NW2d 480 (1998).