Other acts evidence; Prior acts of domestic violence; MCL 768.27b; People v. Propp; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v. Cameron; People v. Mills; People v. McGuffey

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the probative value of evidence of defendant’s prior act of domestic violence against the victim was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Thus, it affirmed his convictions and sentences, but remanded for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error in the amended judgment of sentence. He was convicted of second-degree murder, FIP of a firearm, FIP of ammunition, and two counts of felony-firearm in the shooting death of his girlfriend. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence of his prior act of domestic violence against the victim. “Defendant argues that the evidence was unduly prejudicial because it essentially portrayed him as having been violent against [the victim] in the past.” His argument simply showed “that the evidence, under the facts of this case, was prejudicial for the same reasons that it was relevant. However, that is not a basis for finding that the evidence was unfairly prejudicial.” The prosecution “focused on the proper purpose for which the evidence was admissible. Moreover, in its final instructions, the trial court gave a cautionary instruction to the jury, explaining the limited, proper use of the evidence, thereby limiting any potential for unfair prejudice.” Defendant failed to show “any basis for overcoming the presumption that the jury followed these instructions.”