Other acts of domestic violence; MCL 768.27b; Probative value; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v Berklund; Right to a fair trial; Reference to “other charges”; Hearsay; Statements made for medical diagnosis & treatment; MRE 803(4); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Jury instructions

The court held that the trial court did not err by admitting defendant’s other acts of domestic violence, by allowing testimony as to his “other charges,” or by instructing the jury, and he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. He was convicted of assault by strangulation and CSC III for assaulting the victim (a woman he had been dating). On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by admitting prior assaultive acts under MCL 768.27b and in its MRE 403 analysis. “Both victims suffered injuries consistent with their description of the attack by defendant. An analysis of these factors supports the admission of the evidence in accordance with MRE 403, MRE 404(b), and MCL 768.27b.” The court also rejected his claim that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial when an officer testified that he obtained a buccal swab from defendant when he was jailed “on other charges,” contrary to MRE 404(b). “Defendant’s interjection of the circumstances that brought him in for an interview opened the door to full, not selective development, surrounding the issue. And, in exercising the right to self-representation, [he] was not entitled to a successful cross-examination.” Although the officer “may have volunteered the fact that defendant was in the jail ‘on other charges,’ defendant’s persistent questioning on cross-examination not only divulged that other charges were pending but the circumstances of defendant’s arrest that included the addition of a charge of resisting and obstructing.” The court next rejected his contention that the trial court erred by improperly admitting the victim’s hearsay statements to the nurse examiner, who performed sexual assault and strangulation assessments. “Defendant specifically approved of the admission of the reports” when questioning the nurse examiner, “and this waiver of his rights extinguished any error.” Moreover, he could not “claim ineffective assistance of counsel in light of his choice to represent himself and question” her. Finally, the court rejected his contention that the trial court erred in giving the jury instructions, noting he “failed to object to the instructions, and when asked for issues or objections, defense counsel assented to the instructions as read.” Affirmed.