Joinder; MCR 6.120(B) & (C); People v Williams; People v Gaines; People v McCune; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); People v Ackerman; MCL 768.27b; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v Watkins; Constitutional challenge to MCL 768.27b; People v Muniz; American Bar Association (ABA)

In this case in which defendant was “accused of leveraging his medical practice to sexually assault five patients and two student interns[,]” the court held that the trial court did not err in joining the patient cases for trial. Further, the trial court did not err in ruling that other acts evidence would be admissible in that trial. Lastly, the court rejected his constitutional challenge to MCL 768.27b, finding its reasoning in Muniz, where it “rejected a nearly identical challenge to” MCL 768.27a, equally applied here. Thus, it affirmed the trial court in these consolidated interlocutory appeals. As to joinder, the “central inquiry is whether these offenses are ‘related.’” The trial court reasoned “that ‘due to the similarity of the scheme, location, and access to victims[,] [the patient cases] are both the same conduct and are a series of acts that constitute part of a single scheme . . . .’” The court found “this conclusion consistent with Williams and Gaines. The common allegation is that defendant exploited his role as an obstetrician-gynecologist to obtain secluded access to patients and engage in sexual misconduct under the guise of medical” exams. The court noted that this was “a more consistent modus operandi than the one found sufficient for joinder in Gaines[.]” In addition, it was “a more identifiably distinct modus operandi than that in Williams[.]” While defendant relied on McCune, the court was “unpersuaded. Whatever general commentary from the ABA this Court quoted in McCune—several years before we would be bound by any such statement under MCR 7.215(J)(1)—cannot supersede the actual holdings in cases like Williams and Gaines, where joinder was permitted for ‘schemes’ less distinctive than those alleged here. And since ‘the unambiguous language of MCR 6.120 does not mandate the existence of temporal proximity between several offenses,’” the court did not find “the 16-year timespan is an obstacle to joinder either.” As to the other acts evidence, the court noted that the “prosecution need only rely on MCL 768.27b” here. Considering MRE 403, the court determined that defendant did not establish “that the evidence would be unduly prejudicial. Although the alleged acts vary in certain details, all the charged offenses and uncharged conduct share a common pattern involving defendant taking advantage of his position as a doctor to sexually assault his patients.”