Exclusion of evidence as to defendant’s motivation for CCW; MRE 103(a)(2); People v. King; People v. Benton; People v. Elston; Relevance; MCR 401 & 402; MCL 750.227(2); Principle that the mens rea requirement does not extend to the defendant’s purpose for CCW; People v. Hernandez-Garcia; People v. Triplett; Self-defense; Waived issue; People v. Carter; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v. Unger

The court determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the irrelevant evidence related to defendant’s motivation for CCW. Also, the trial court’s evidentiary ruling did not violate her constitutional right to a defense because she was not entitled to assert it. Finally, reversal was not warranted because the prosecutor’s comment did not deny her “a fair trial or affect the outcome of the proceedings.” Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence as to her motivation for CCW and erroneously prevented her from asserting self-defense. The substance of the excluded evidence as to the sexual assault allegations against C “was made known to the trial court through the parties’ motions and arguments before trial, and it determined that the evidence should be excluded because it was not relevant to” her CCW charge. Defendant was charged with CCW for carrying a concealed pistol. Thus, the only relevant intent was whether she knowingly possessed the pistol. Because her purpose “did not make it any more or less probable that defendant knowingly possessed a pistol during the incident, evidence regarding defendant’s reason for carrying a pistol—namely the allegations that [C] sexually assaulted her son—was not relevant.” Affirmed.