Evidence of other acts of sexual assault; MCL 768.27b; People v Cameron; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v Watkins

The court held that the trial court’s exclusion of other acts evidence under MRE 403 was not outside the range of principled outcomes. Defendant was charged with CSC I arising out of an alleged sexual assault against CC. The trial court granted his motion to exclude other acts evidence noticed by the prosecution. On appeal, the court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that defendant engaged in other acts of sexual assault with another victim, JW, agreeing with the trial court that there was a significant risk of unfair prejudice. “First, there is a stark contrast in circumstances surrounding CC’s and JW’s allegations against defendant. CC alleged that defendant sexually assaulted her by forcibly penetrating her vagina at a party within a few hours of meeting her. But JW is expected to testify that defendant, with whom she was in a dating relationship at the time, allegedly held her captive in her home and repeatedly sexually assaulted her by penetrating her orally, vaginally, and anally over the course of several days two years after he allegedly assaulted CC.” Further, because the “other alleged acts involving JW have not resulted in a conviction, there are reliability concerns that present a risk of unfair prejudice that outweighs the evidence’s probative value.” Finally, the “evidence supporting the current charges is expected to come from CC’s testimony, physical evidence, and several other witnesses that were present on the day of the assault. There is no need to supplement this evidence and testimony with JW’s testimony.” While JW’s testimony “may have some probative value, the probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice . . . .” Affirmed.