"Other acts" evidence; MRE 404(b); People v. VanderVliet; People v. Mardlin; People v. Sabin (After Remand); People v. Engelman; The notice requirement of MRE 404(b)(2); Whether there is a “res gestae exception” to MRE 404(b); People v. Delgado; People v. Sholl; People v. Kayne; United States v. Green (3rd Cir.); United States v. Boone (7th Cir.); State v. Ferrero (AZ); Harmless error; People v. Douglas; MRE 401 & 402; People v. Starr; MRE 403; People v. Crawford

Holding that there is no “res gestae exception” to MRE 404(b), the court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the challenged testimony was other acts evidence and the trial court erred in ruling otherwise, but it disagreed with the Court of Appeals majority that the testimony fell within a res gestae exception to the rule. However, the court concluded that the defendant’s convictions should be affirmed because the error in admitting the evidence “without reference to or compliance with MRE 404(b)” was harmless. Thus, while it vacated the portion of the Court of Appeals majority’s opinion dealing with a res gestae exception to MRE 404(b), it affirmed his convictions of six counts of CSC I. The “conduct at issue” here was the defendant-pastor’s charged CSC acts against the victim. His prior relationships with witness-P and another parishioner “plainly did not constitute, directly evidence, or contemporaneously facilitate the commission of this conduct.” Rather, P’s testimony “was offered to provide inferential support for the conclusion that the charged conduct did, in fact, occur as alleged, and that those allegations were not fabricated. Such evidence falls comfortably within the prevailing and established scope of ‘other acts’ contemplated by MRE 404(b), and the propriety of its inferential support is subject to scrutiny under that rule.” Based on the plain language of the rule, the court concluded that there is no res gestae exception from its coverage, and it did not read either Delgado or Sholl as creating one. However, while the admission of P’s testimony without applying MRE 404(b) was error, the court agreed with the Court of Appeals that defendant was not entitled to relief. The error did not result in the admission of substantively inadmissible other acts evidence against him. P’s testimony “was ‘logically relevant to a material fact in the case, as required by MRE 401 and MRE 402, and [was] not simply evidence of’” his character “‘or relevant to his propensity to act in conformance with his character.’” It was “offered for the proper, nonpropensity purpose of explaining the timing and circumstances” of P’s conversation with the victim, to counter defendant’s theory that the victim’s allegations were fabricated at P’s urging. It was also “tailored to its proper purpose, and did not delve into” unnecessary detail. While it was error for the prosecution not to comply with MRE 404(b)(2), defendant did not show that “this error ‘more probably than not . . . was outcome determinative.’” The other evidence of his guilt “was overwhelming.”