Admission of other acts evidence of sexual abuse of a minor under MCL 768.27a(1) & (2); Distinguishing MCL 768.27a & MRE 404(b); Relevance; MRE 401; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v Watkins; Cautionary instruction; Sentencing; Inapplicability of the sentencing guidelines where a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory; MCL 750.520b(2)(c); MCL 769.34(5)

The court held that the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of defendant’s sexual abuse of another minor because it was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. It also held that the trial court properly stated that the guidelines did not apply to his sentence and correctly imposed the mandatory sentence. He was convicted of CSC I for sexually abusing the victim, his wife’s younger sister, beginning when she was 12 years old and he was 38. The trial court sentenced defendant, who had previously been convicted of CSC I, to mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that he was unfairly prejudiced by the trial court’s admission of evidence that he sexually abused another 12-year-old girl in 1996. The evidence was relevant because evidence of his “prior criminal sex acts with a 12-year-old girl tended to make more likely” the victim’s otherwise uncorroborated testimony. And “[c]onsidering the highly probative value of the other acts evidence, the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” It was probative of his “intent and propensity to sexually assault 12-year-old girls. Moreover, in its final instructions, the trial court gave a cautionary instruction to the jury concerning the proper use of the evidence, thereby limiting the potential for unfair prejudice.” The court also rejected his claim that he was entitled to sentencing relief because the trial court refused to consider his challenge to the accuracy of the scoring of his guidelines, finding his contention “meritless because MCL 750.520b(2)(c) established a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment for his conviction, so the sentencing guidelines do not apply.” Affirmed.