Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); Proper, noncharacter purposes; Relevance; Identity; Common plan or scheme; Opinion testimony; MRE 701; Cumulative effects of alleged errors

The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from defendant-James’s ex-girlfriend under MRE 404(b) but reversal was not warranted. Also, the trial court properly admitted the opinion testimony of the officer who took victim-A’s report about the assault. Finally, it held that given “that this is not a case involving multiple errors, reversal on the basis of cumulative error is not warranted.” Defendant was convicted of AWIGBH. The first step in the inquiry was “whether the prosecution ‘has articulated a proper noncharacter purpose’ for admission of evidence that the defendant committed a prior bad act.” The court noted that “the prosecution provided a laundry list of permissible purposes for the evidence, asserting that it was being offered to show identity, intent, lack of accident or mistake, to disprove self-defense, and to show that James had a plan, system, or scheme. Each of the recited purposes are proper, noncharacter purposes for which other-acts evidence may be deemed admissible.” The court found that the trial court took no “vigilant inquiry into the relevance of the evidence to each of the ‘proper purposes’ recited by the prosecution.” The court first considered the prosecution’s claim that the other acts “evidence is logically relevant to prove identity.” The court noted that it “was unrefuted that James and [A] engaged in a physical altercation.” The disputed issue was who initiated it. “Thus, evidence that James was fighting [A] would not have been indicative of James’s guilt or innocence and would not have shed light on any material point.” Likewise, the other acts “evidence was not relevant to proving lack of accident or mistake given that neither is an element of the charge brought against James and given that he was not raising a defense of accident or mistake.” The prosecution contended “that the evidence was relevant and admissible to show that James was acting under a common plan or scheme.” The court noted that “the common features between the other acts and the charged act are that James was consuming alcohol and drugs with a woman, he got into a dispute with her over a physical object, and he responded to the argument by physically assaulting her. That similarity is indicative of a similar spontaneous act, not the existence of a plan to physically assault women who make him angry while he is under the influence of illicit substances.” Next, the prosecution maintained “the evidence is relevant and admissible to show James’s ‘intent.’” The court held that “although the prosecution provided a laundry list of permissible purposes for the evidence, . . . the evidence was not relevant and admissible under any of the theories recited.” Thus, the trial “abused its discretion by admitting the evidence[.]” But the court found that in “light of the properly admitted evidence and the fact that the [trial] court did not draw a forbidden inference from the other-acts evidence, the error in admitting the other-acts evidence is not outcome determinative.” Affirmed.