Other acts of domestic violence; Balancing test under MRE 403; MCL 768.27b; People v Watkins; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to admission of an unredacted PPO; Failure to object to prosecutor’s arguments; Failure to adequately advise during negotiations; Remote participation in sentencing hearing

The court held that because the probative value of the other acts "evidence was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the other-acts evidence under MCL 768.27b.” Also, defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finally, as he “failed to establish that his remote participation in the sentencing hearing affected his substantial rights, he is not entitled to resentencing.” Defendant challenged “the trial court’s admission of evidence that he committed acts of domestic violence in addition to those supporting the criminal charges against him.” He contended that the trial court erred in its “ruling by failing to employ the balancing test prescribed by MRE 403.” The court found that the evidence as to “defendant’s previous act of domestic violence showed that defendant had a propensity to physically attack family members out of anger by punching them and kicking down doors.” The court noted that despite “the manifest significance of the other-acts evidence, defendant faults the trial court for failing to properly weigh the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect. To decide whether such relevant evidence should be excluded because of its prejudicial effect, a trial court should consider the” factors in Watkins. The court held that “the trial court did not apply the MRE 403 balancing test in a formal manner, but the record establishes that the trial court considered and then rejected defense counsel’s argument regarding the prejudicial nature of the evidence.” It did not abuse its discretion by admitting the other-acts evidence under MCL 768.27b because the probative value “was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.” Affirmed.