Exclusion of evidence; Relevance; MRE 401 & 402; MRE 403; Harmless error; Child sexually abusive material (CSAM)

While the court found the trial court erred in excluding evidence that a flash drive belonged to someone else, it concluded the error was not outcome-determinative and reversal was unwarranted. Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of aggravated CSAM and using a computer to commit aggravated CSAM, as well as indecent exposure. Two tips indicated that CSAM was connected to his name and address. He “lived with his mother, a roommate, and a romantic partner, TR. After a search warrant was executed, CSAM files were found to have been accessed by defendant’s computer and downloaded onto” the flash drive. Photos from the 2004 funeral of TR’s grandmother “had at one time been downloaded onto the flash drive . . . .” They were deleted before it “was seized, and officers were unable to determine when [they] had been downloaded onto the flash drive. Defense counsel” unsuccessfully sought to introduce evidence of the photos “to prove that the flash drive belonged to TR[.]” The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in considering their remoteness when deciding whether to admit them. Further, “it was unclear how long ago they had been deleted.” As to their relevance, “evidence of who owned the flash drive—and the downloaded CSAM within—was material because defendant’s knowing possession of the CSAM was directly at issue.” The photos also “had a tendency—however slight—'to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without’” them. The court found this “evidence, along with the testimony that TR lived at defendant’s house and occasionally slept in the bed that the flash drive was located next to, could have led a reasonable juror to determine that the flash drive—and its contents—belonged to TR.” Thus, the trial court erred in finding the evidence was not relevant. Further, any prejudice “did not substantially outweigh” its probative value. But the court found that, “considering all the evidence together, it does not affirmatively appear, more probable than not, that” its exclusion undermined the verdict’s reliability. Among other things, “defendant wrote two confession letters indicating that he had downloaded CSAM onto a flash drive” to frame TR. Affirmed.