Expert testimony; MRE 702; People v Peterson; People v Thorpe; Hearsay; The tender-years exception (MRE 803A); Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27a(1); People v Watkins; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to expert testimony; Failure to call an eyewitness; Factual predicate; Failure to seek expert assistance

The court held that the challenged expert testimony was proper and that some alleged hearsay testimony was not hearsay while other testimony was admissible under MRE 803A. It also upheld the admission of other acts evidence under MCL 768.27a(1) and rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Thus, it affirmed his CSC I and II convictions. The court concluded that expert witness-C “did not testify that sexual abuse occurred, did not vouch for” the credibility of the victims (IJ and GL) and an other acts witness (SB) “or otherwise indicate that they were being truthful, did not opine that defendant was guilty, and did not testify with respect to a rate or percentage that children lie when alleging sexual abuse.” It found nothing improper in the prosecution asking C “about disclosures of touching made by eight-year-old children and in [C’s] answering that it is common for children around that age to vaguely refer to touching when first speaking to a parent about sexual abuse and then to subsequently elaborate regarding the abuse. The testimony was elicited because IJ’s initial disclosure could have been construed by the jury as being inconsistent with that of an actual victim of sexual abuse.” The court held that C’s “testimony did not entail impermissible bolstering” and thus, there was no plain error in its admission. Further, as it was proper, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object. The court also held that expert-W, a therapist, “did not vouch for IJ’s credibility or otherwise testify or opine that IJ was telling the truth. [W] simply indicated that IJ was more comfortable speaking about the alleged sexual abuse during the therapy session” because IJ’s father’s girlfriend (TP) was present and provided emotional support. Defense “counsel argued that IJ’s more detailed disclosure at that counseling session was attributable to the fact that she was influenced by TP’s own disclosure to IJ about TP’s abuse. Further, although [W] testified that she assumed that what IJ had told her about the abuse was true, she testified that it was not her job to verify the truth of what IJ was saying.” As to the other acts evidence, despite how many years ago it occurred, “the details of SB’s alleged assault were strikingly similar to the allegations by IJ and GL.”