Other acts evidence; Reference to the Michigan’s Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) & defendant’s parolee status; MRE 404(b); People v. VanderVliet; Identity as a proper purpose; Relevance; People v. Crawford; MRE 403; Unfair prejudice; People v. Gipson; People v. Mills; People v. Watkins; Harmless error; People v. Lukity; Limiting jury instruction; People v. Kelly; People v. Mullins

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence related to OTIS and defendant’s parolee status, the court affirmed his CSC III and resisting or obstructing an officer convictions. The prosecution provided notice before trial that it would seek permission to admit other acts evidence under MRE 404(b), specifically the victim’s (JH) “discovery of defendant’s identity via her use of OTIS.” The court noted that her testimony showed she used OTIS to obtain a photo “of her attacker and information about him, which she reported to the police and his parole officer, leading to defendant’s arrest as the alleged perpetrator of the assault against her. The prosecution’s use of this evidence to prove identity was a proper purpose under MRE 404(b)(1).” Next, the court found that her “use of OTIS was probative of a material fact at issue in the trial—defendant’s identity as the person who sexually assaulted her.” The record made it clear that his “identity was a material fact at issue during the trial. JH testified that the afternoon preceding the sexual assault was the first time that she met the person who assaulted her. She also testified that she had not been provided with that person’s name during their interactions. Therefore, the jury was required to consider whether she actually identified the correct person as the one who had assaulted her, making that issue a material fact for the jury to decide.” The court concluded that without the evidence that she used OTIS to find him, “the jury would have been left to speculate about how JH was able to identify defendant as her attacker despite having only met him once and not having been introduced to him by name.” Finally, the court held that the evidence had significant probative value and the prejudice to defendant was relatively minor, if any. The method JH used to identify her attacker “was important for the jury to consider. Moreover, although the fact that defendant had been recently paroled was revealed, the jury was not made aware of the actual crimes of which defendant had been convicted. The fact that the jury was made generally aware that defendant had been convicted of a crime in the past, without more, does not suggest that the jury would have turned to passion or bias in deciding to convict defendant of the charged crimes.”