Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27b; People v Cameron; Relevance; MRE 401; Risk of unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v Watkins; People v Sharpe; Admission of victim’s diary entries & accompanying testimony; Harmless error

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged other acts evidence under MCL 768.27b and in not excluding it under MRE 403. As to the admission of the victim’s diary entries, it found that “the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting Exhibits 12 and 15” and that even if admitting them “was erroneous, any error was harmless and” did not merit reversal. Thus, it affirmed defendant’s CSC I and II convictions. He challenged the trial court’s admission of the victim’s testimony about a 2022 sexual assault, arguing it was not admissible under MCL 768.27b and should have been excluded under MRE 403. But this “evidence related to defendant’s commission of another act of sexual assault, and MCL 768.27b permitted its admission for any purpose for which it was relevant as long as it was not excluded under MRE 403.” He contended that it “was not relevant because whether he sexually assaulted the victim as an adult is not probative of whether he sexually assaulted her as a child.” The court found that argument unpersuasive. His CSC II “charge was based on the victim’s allegation that, while the family prayed in a circle with their heads bowed and eyes closed, [he] touched her breasts and bottom. [Her] testimony that defendant touched her breasts and bottom at her graduation party while surrounded by friends and family increases the likelihood that [he] similarly groped her while surrounded by praying family members. The fact that [she] was over 18 during the graduation party assault does not render that assault so dissimilar to the charged assaults as to deprive it of its probative value.” In addition, the “evidence was relevant because it clarified why the victim reported the allegations to law enforcement in 2022.” As to MRE 403, the “trial court considered the Watkins factors and found that: (1) the 2022 assault was not so dissimilar from the charged offenses as to deprive it of probative value; (2) [it] occurred a significant time after the charged conduct; (3) the other act occurred ‘fairly frequently or whenever [defendant] was around [the victim]’; (4) there were no intervening acts; (5) no other witnesses would testify” about the 2022 assault; and (6) the “testimony was necessary to the prosecution’s case because ‘[t]his is a case that would be based on the credibility’ of the victim. Those findings were supported by the record evidence.”