Other acts evidence of sexual abuse involving a minor; MCL 768.27a; Propensity; People v Solloway; Relevance; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v Watkins; “Listed offense” & “convicted” under the Sex Offenders Registration Act; MCL 28.722(a)(i)-(iii); The Watkins factors; Similarity of the other acts; Temporal proximity of the other acts; People v Hoskins; Frequency of the other acts; Effect of intervening acts; Reliability; People v Beck; Bolstering; Effect of a limiting instruction

The court held that the trial court did not err by admitting other acts evidence regarding defendant’s sexual abuse of his stepsisters more than 20 years before (when defendant was between 11 and 19 years old) the sexual abuse at issue in this case. He was convicted of CSC I for sexually abusing his daughter. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting other acts evidence that included the acts he committed involving his stepsisters. “[C]ontrary to defendant’s arguments, regardless of his age, the other acts at issue constitute ‘listed offenses’ for purposes of MCL 768.27a.” The court then considered MRE 403 and the Watkins factors, and found that, while it was a close call, the factors favored admission of the evidence. “Overall, although the lack of temporal proximity weighs against admission of the other acts evidence, the other factors are either neutral or they weigh in favor of the admission of the evidence. Recognizing that the propensity inference must be weighed in favor of the evidence’s admission, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the” other acts evidence. “The record shows that the trial court weighed the pertinent factors and provided a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the use of this evidence. Although a close question,” the court could not conclude that “the trial court abused its discretion in resolving this close evidentiary question.” Affirmed.