Exclusion of the victim’s prior acts of violence against defendant; MRE 404(a)(4); MRE 608; MRE 404(b)(1); Proper purpose; People v Galloway; Police officers’ testimony; People v Heft; Opinion testimony; MRE 701; People v Allen; Constitutional right to present a defense; Cumulative effect of errors

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the victim’s (defendant’s then-husband) “prior acts of violence against defendant” and also that she was not entitled to appellate relief based on police witnesses’ testimony. Further, it concluded the record contradicted her claim the trial court’s evidentiary rulings denied her the right to present a defense, and her cumulative error claim failed in the absence of any error. Thus, the court affirmed her assault and battery, felonious assault, and domestic violence convictions. Admission “of character evidence to prove an individual acted in conformity with that trait on a specific occasion is prohibited, unless a listed exception applies.” The only potentially applicable exception here “was subsection (4), which allows evidence of a witness’s character pursuant to MRE 607, MRE 608, MRE 609.” After considering MRE 404(a)(4), the trial court determined “the specific instances of conduct were inadmissible because they did not concern the truthfulness or untruthfulness of the victim as mandated by MRE 608(b). It is clear from the record and on appeal that defendant sought admission of the evidence to prove that the victim had a propensity for violence, and he was acting in accordance with that trait on the day of the assault. Such a purpose is expressly prohibited by MRE 404(a).” As to MRE 404(b)(1), she did not “show that the victim’s alleged prior acts of violence were offered for a proper purpose.” She next challenged the admission of police witnesses’ testimony she contended impermissibly expressed an opinion as to her guilt. The court found that a “fair reading of the record indicates that neither officer testified about defendant’s guilt; rather, the officers were explaining opinions and conclusions based on their personal perceptions of the victim’s injuries, the interviews, and the other collected evidence during the investigation.” As to her right to present a defense, it was clear that she “was able to present her self-defense claim. Defendant had ample opportunity to cross-examine the victim, the victim’s friend, and the responding officers. Defendant’s entire written statement addressing the assault, in which she asserted self-defense, was admitted as evidence, and the jury was instructed on self-defense.” Thus, the jury was given the opportunity to consider her self-defense claim.