Accosting a child for immoral purposes; People v Kowalksi; Great weight of the evidence argument; Credibility challenge; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); Whether error was outcome-determinative; Due process; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v Noble

The court held that defendant’s accosting a child for immoral purposes conviction was not against the great weight of the evidence, and that while a witness’s (AT) testimony was erroneously admitted because it was inadmissible under MRE 404(b), the error was not outcome-determinative. His due process claim also failed. In support of his great weight of the evidence argument, he asserted that the victim’s (ASM) testimony lacked credibility. However, the court defers to the fact-finder’s credibility determinations absent a showing that “‘testimony was so far impeached that it was deprived of all probative value or that the jury could not believe it.’” It found that defendant did not meet this high standard. In addition, it noted that ASM’s friend (EE) “was present and corroborated ASM’s testimony that defendant offered to improve ASM’s grade if she engaged in a single act of fellatio and further improve her grade if she engaged in two acts of fellatio. And, although not matching ASM’s description exactly, EE confirmed that defendant told the girls that he would not have sexual intercourse with them, but would accept fellatio. Simply put, ASM and EE’s testimony was not patently incredible, but was supported by the videotape depicting them arriving at defendant’s classroom, entering with defendant, and leaving shortly thereafter.” He also argued that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence due to the admission of “highly prejudicial MRE 404(b) evidence.” But the court noted that, even without AT’s other acts “testimony, there was sufficient evidence of defendant’s guilt. Both ASM and EE testified that defendant requested fellatio in exchange for raising ASM’s grade. Both girls reported that defendant was ‘serious’ about his request. Ultimately, it does not matter that the prosecution offered admittedly irrelevant evidence because ASM’s testimony alone, and ASM and EE’s testimony together,” satisfied the elements of the charged crime. As to his due process argument, while “defendant’s trial was not perfect, it was fair.” Affirmed.