Due process; Standard to review a request for expert assistance; People v Kennedy; Affirmative defense; Other acts of domestic violence; Application of MCL 768.27b; MRE 404(b)(1); MCL 768.27b(3)

The court held that “the Court of Appeals erred by holding that defendant was required to make the additional showing necessary for affirmative defenses in order to be entitled to expert assistance and by holding that rules of evidence other than MRE 403 do not apply to other acts evidence admitted under MCL 768.27b.” Thus, it vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Court of Appeals. The case concerned a death where the only issue was defendant’s intent. He alleged a violation of his due-process rights. He argued “both that an expert was necessary to support his theory that the death was accidental and that evidence of other acts of domestic violence was improperly admitted.” The court determined that “the Court of Appeals erred by applying the standard for affirmative defenses to defendant’s request for expert assistance.” Because it failed to apply the correct standard, the court vacated the Court of Appeals’ analysis on this issue and remanded “to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the correct standard under Kennedy—namely, whether there was a reasonable probability that the expert would have been helpful to the defense and whether the denial of expert assistance rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.” As to the application of MCL 768.27b, the court concluded that it is “apparent that rules of evidence not specifically mentioned in MCL 768.27b may nonetheless be considered when determining whether evidence is admissible. Specifically, MCL 768.27b does not limit or preclude the consideration of MRE 802, which states that hearsay is generally not admissible.” Thus, it held that given “the plain language of MCL 768.27b(3) allows for the consideration of other rules of evidence, the trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to consider these other rules in determining whether the challenged prior acts were admissible.”