Admission of evidence under MCL 768.27a; Unfair prejudice; People v Watkins; Admission of evidence under MRE 404(b); Notice requirements; Joinder of cases; MCR 6.120; People v Gaines; Sentencing; Mandatory 25-year minimum for a CSC I conviction pursuant to MCL 750.520b(2); People v Benton; Correction of errors in the presentence investigation report (PSIR); Scoring of OV 11; Whether resentencing was required

The court rejected defendant’s challenges to the admission of evidence under MCL 768.27a and MRE 404(b) in his trial on CSC charges and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in joining his cases for trial. As to his sentencing, (1) his constitutional challenges to the 25-year mandatory minimum failed in light of Benton and (2) while OV 11 was erroneously scored, resentencing was not required because correcting the score would not change his minimum guidelines ranges. Thus, the court affirmed his CSC I, II, and III convictions in these consolidated cases and his sentences of 300 to 450 months for each CSC I, 60 to 180 months for each CSC II, and 78 to 180 months for CSC III. But it remanded for the ministerial task of correcting his PSIR and OV 11 score. He challenged the admission of testimony from his niece, DV. Applying the Watkins factors, the court noted that DV and the victims in these cases (VCV and VR), who were all “related to defendant, asserted that [he] sexually assaulted them while they were minors and were living in the same residence as defendant. [He] took advantage of moments when the victims were isolated to commit the sexual assaults, despite other family members living in the residence. The assaults occurred approximately in 2011 for VR, between 2014 and 2015 for DV, and spanning between 2009 and 2014 for VCV. No record evidence was presented that undermines the credibility of DV’s assertions, and DV’s testimony served to bolster VCV’s and VR’s testimonies as this matter amounted to a credibility contest with no other persons who witnessed the sexual assaults.” Thus, most of the Watkins factors favored admitting DV’s testimony under MCL 768.27a. The court added that while the testimony would clearly have been prejudicial, the effect of this “prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of DV’s testimony in providing further corroboration to VCV’s and VR’s testimonies.” Defendant’s challenge to the admission of testimony about his “alleged prior acts of domestic violence” also failed. As to joinder, while the cases involved “separate incidents, they represent a ‘series of acts constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.’” Further, the facts “were not complex; presented little potential for confusion; and the testimonies of VCV, VR, and DV would have been admissible” under MCL 768.27a in separate trials.