Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; Sufficiency of the evidence; Felony-murder & armed robbery; Court costs

The court concluded that the complained of error was not outcome determinative, and even if the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the other acts evidence, there were insufficient grounds for reversal. Also, the jury could have reasonably determined that “defendant was in the victim’s apartment on the night in question, and by extension, that he committed felony-murder and armed robbery.” Finally, the trial court did not plainly err when it imposed $1611 in court costs. Defendant argued that the trial court erred by admitting other acts evidence under MRE 404(b). Specifically, he argued that Detective N’s “testimony as to defendant’s actions related to a 2007 conviction of AWIGBH was irrelevant and was offered solely to demonstrate propensity. Additionally, the testimony was unfairly prejudicial because it distracted the jury from the lack of evidence tying defendant to the victim’s murder.” The prosecution argued that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the testimony as to the prior conviction was relevant and offered for a proper purpose. The evidence was probative of his identity, intent, motive, and method or operation in committing the crime. Even if the trial court erred by admitting the other acts evidence, the prosecution argued, the evidence was not outcome-determinative. The details provided in N’s testimony constituted “legally sufficient common features to establish a rational inference of a common plan or scheme.” As to MRE 403, the probative value of the evidence—establishing his identity through a common plan or scheme—did not appear to have been substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. The two acts appeared fairly similar. Further, the testimony appeared reliable because N worked the prior case and defendant was convicted of the other act. The court noted that “the prior act was over a decade old; however, remoteness of time goes to weight and not admissibility.” Even excluding the prosecution’s other acts evidence, it “met its burden to prove that defendant committed felony murder and armed robbery in connection with the victim’s death.” Affirmed.