Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); Intent; Relevance; MRE 403; Unfair prejudice; Notice under MRE 404(b)(2); Sufficiency of the evidence; Felony murder; Sentencing; Accuracy of the PSIR

The court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting other acts evidence under MRE 404(b). Also, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s felony murder conviction. Thus, it affirmed his convictions and sentences, but remanded for the ministerial task of correcting his sentencing documentation. As to the other acts evidence, his intent as to the murder victim was “critical to determining whether the predicate-offense element of felony murder was satisfied.” The court held that “evidence of the alleged earlier robbery was highly probative of defendant’s intent to commit an armed robbery against the murder victim. The uncharged conduct took place less than an hour before the charged offense and showed that defendant was acting pursuant to a common plan or scheme.” In both instances, he “discussed the exchange of money for drugs. When defendant was expected to take out money, he instead took out a gun. Thus, the uncharged armed robbery and the charged offense were sufficiently similar such that the jury could infer that defendant planned to rob the murder victim.” Lastly, the court determined the other acts “evidence was not unfairly prejudicial to defendant, and any risk of an improper propensity inference was neutralized by the trial court’s limiting instruction that the jury could not consider the evidence for propensity purposes. Jurors are presumed to follow their instructions. Accordingly, the risk of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” Defendant also argued the prosecution failed to provide the notice required by MRE 404(b)(2). The court held that there “was good cause for the prosecution’s failure to provide pretrial notice of [PC’s] testimony regarding the alleged robbery. [PC] pleaded guilty on the Friday before the start of the trial on Monday. Accordingly, at the time that notice was due under MRE 404(b)(2), the prosecution did not anticipate calling [PC] as a witness given the pending charges against her.” The court concluded the other acts “evidence was substantively admissible under MRE 404(b). Further, defendant was aware of [PC’s] allegations regarding the uncharged robbery because a detective had testified about those allegations at the preliminary examination over defendant’s objection. And defendant does not explain how he would have conducted the trial differently had formal notice of the uncharged robbery been provided under MRE 404(b)(2).” As to the sufficiency of the evidence, the court held that the “evidence showed that earlier that evening defendant committed an armed robbery during which he pulled a gun on a drug dealer. Defendant followed a similar scheme with respect to the murder victim. When [C] and defendant met with the victim, defendant and the victim discussed an exchange of money for cocaine. Instead of pulling out money as expected, defendant pulled out a gun and shot the victim.” Thus, there was sufficient evidence he committed attempted armed robbery, the predicate offense for his felony murder conviction.