Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27b (offenses against a minor); People v Cameron; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; Principle that a “temporal divide” between the prior act and the charged offense by itself does not preclude the evidence’s admission; People v Solloway; Limiting instruction; People v Mardlin; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v Cooper; Improper vouching; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a futile objection

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of defendant’s previous convictions. Further, it found that the prosecutor did not improperly vouch for the victim’s credibility and trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object. He was convicted of CSC IV. As to his challenge to the admission of evidence of his previous convictions, the court noted that they “involved predatory conduct toward a female who defendant believed was 15 years old. In this case, during an interview with a Michigan State Police detective, defendant told the detective that the victim, although an adult, had ‘a 15-year-old cognition,’ and ‘that it more than likely dropped below that when she had been drinking.’ He met the victim at the Special Olympics. The similarity between the previous convictions and the charged sexual assault weighs in favor of admissibility.” In addition, when “considering the similarity between the previous convictions and the sexual assault in the present case, the two-year temporal divide between the assaults does not weigh in favor of exclusion.” Further, the trial court “mitigated any prejudice toward defendant when it instructed the jury to not consider the evidence of [his] previous convictions unless ‘you find that the Defendant actually committed such act’ and to ‘not convict the Defendant here solely because you think he is guilty of bad conduct.’” The court also rejected his claim that the prosecutor deprived him of a fair trial by vouching for the credibility of the victim and her friend and by suggesting he is a liar during closing argument. “The prosecutor did not reference any individualized knowledge that she had about the victim or the victim’s friend; rather, she connected her statements back to the evidence presented during trial.” The prosecutor “mentioned that the victim’s friend did not know defendant, and . . . noted that the victim and the victim’s friend had nothing to gain by telling the jury what happened.” In addition, the prosecutor “outlined the discrepancies in defendant’s testimony and noted that defendant minimized his involvement with the victim.” Finally, the prosecutor “noted that the victim’s sexual assault nurse examination revealed the presence of male DNA in the places where defendant said that he kissed the victim.” The prosecutor’s statements “fell within her great latitude to argue her theory of the case.” Moreover, trial counsel’s “failure to object to the prosecutor’s statements did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, because objecting to the statements would have been futile.” Affirmed.