“Other acts” evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); People v. VanderVliet; People v. Pesquera; Claim that the evidence was relevant under the “doctrine of numbers”; MRE 401; People v. Mardlin; Whether the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; MRE 403; Claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct by improperly using the victim’s preliminary examination testimony to bolster the victim’s credibility at trial; People v. Bennett; “Plain error”; People v. Gibbs; “Vouching”; People v. Wood; Prior consistent statements; People v. Malone; MRE 801(d)(1)(B); People v. Jones

[Unpublished opinion.] The court concluded that the challenged evidence was admissible under MRE 404(b)(1) for its relevance in negating, through the doctrine of objective improbability, any suggestion that defendant’s sexual activity with the victim (CY) was consensual. It also rejected his argument that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Defendant theorized that CY and the other acts witnesses (DJ and AP) were falsely accusing him of sexual assault because of disagreements over money. On appeal, he argued, among other things, that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the other acts testimony of DJ and AP pursuant to MRE 404(b)(1). While the trial testimony of DJ and AP “differed in some respects from the proposed testimony summarized in the prosecutor’s pretrial notice, the differences were minor” and did “not establish any significant disparity between the prosecutor’s offer of proof and the testimony presented at trial, or negate the many common features between the uncharged offenses and the charged assault that served as the foundation for the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence under MRE 404(b)(1), for the purpose of showing that defendant’s commission of the charged offense was part of a common plan, scheme, or system in committing sexual assaults against isolated women.” The court rejected defendant’s argument “that the prior incidents involving DJ and AP were not sufficiently similar to the charged offense to be admissible for a non-propensity purpose.” There were sufficient common features between those incidents and the charged offense to infer that they were “manifestations of a common plan, scheme, or system of perpetrating sexual assaults.” All of the incidents involved “defendant selecting a solitary woman on the street, threatening her with a weapon, inducing her to enter his car, and driving to a secluded area. All of the sexual assaults were carried out in defendant’s car, and each incident involved” his use of “a threat of violence with a weapon to force the victim to perform sexual acts.” They all occurred in the same general geographic area. The evidence was relevant to show that he sexually assaulted CY, and to refute his claim that they engaged in consensual sex. Affirmed.