Other acts evidence of domestic violence; MCL 768.27c & 768.27b; Notice; Trustworthiness; People v Meissner; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; Sufficiency of the evidence; CSC III; MCL 750.520d(1)(b); Penetration; People v Hunt; Domestic violence; MCL 750.81(2); “Assault” & “battery”; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 3; MCL 777.33(1)(d); Medical treatment; People v Maben; Scoring of OV 4; MCL 777.34(l)(a); Psychological injury; People v White; Scoring of OV 19

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions and sentences but remanded for ministerial corrections to the PSIR. He was convicted of domestic violence and CSC III for physically and sexually assaulting his girlfriend. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 18 to 40 years for the latter, and 93 days in jail for the former. On appeal, the court rejected his arguments that (1) the trial court erroneously admitted other acts evidence, (2) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions, and (3) he was entitled to resentencing. First, the prosecution properly provided notice of its intent to use the other acts evidence and there was no hearsay violation. And as to trustworthiness, the “victim was presented with the police reports to refresh her recollection of the prior instances of domestic violence, and then testified regarding their contents.” Further, the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Second, because one instance of sexual intercourse “was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution established all elements of one count of” CSC III, the court declined to review the trial court’s finding that the sexual intercourse in the bedroom also constituted CSC III. Similarly, “a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution established both elements of the charged offense of domestic violence.” Third, because there were no errors in the scoring of OV 3, OV 4, or OV 19, defendant was not entitled to resentencing, although remand was required for a ministerial correction to the SIR to reflect zero points for PRV 7. As to OV 3, the “victim was choked hard enough that she was struggling to breathe or verbally resist [defendant], and had bruises on her shoulder and neck, as well as scrape marks on her back.” As to OV 4, there was “plenty of evidence from the victim impact statement given at . . . sentencing showing the victim not only needed psychological treatment, but actively sought it.”