Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27a; MRE 403; People v Watkins; Ex post facto challenge to MCL 768.27a; Exclusion of psychological reports on the victim; People v Stanaway; Extrinsic impeachment evidence; People v Jenkins; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to impeach witnesses’ credibility; Failure to object to prosecutorial error & testimony about defendant’s prior incarceration

The court upheld the admission of other acts evidence under MCL 768.27a and rejected defendant’s ex post facto challenge to the statute. It also concluded the trial court did not err in not admitting two psychological reports on the victim (AK), and rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. He was convicted of CSC I. Defendant objected to the admission of evidence about his prior conviction for CSC against another minor (BG). The court held that the “trial court did not err by determining that defendant’s sexual acts with BG and subsequent conviction for CSC-III were admissible pursuant to MCL 768.27a. Regarding the MRE 403 analysis, both AK and BG were minors at the time, the incidents occurred in 2002 and 2010, and in both cases defendant was friends with the victims’ parents. While [his] assault of AK constituted a single incident whereas his sexual relations with BG comprised approximately four incidents, the sexual assaults of the victims had sufficient temporal proximity and similarity, favoring admission of the evidence.” In addition, “neither assault required proof beyond the victim’s testimony to support a conviction, . . . but other witnesses testified about the nude images that were shared between defendant and BG, which bolstered the ‘reliability of the evidence supporting the occurrence of the other’ act.” The court concluded that despite “the trial court’s failure to engage in MRE 403 analysis, when weighing ‘the propensity inference in favor of the evidence’s probative value rather than its prejudicial effect,’” there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admission of the evidence under MCL 768.27a. As to the exclusion of the psychological reports, among other things “AK’s conversion disorder diagnosis (or its validity) is immaterial to the determination of whether defendant sexually assaulted AK.” As to AK’s alleged “prior inconsistent statement, the report containing [it] was written by a mental-health professional, rather than AK.” Further, defendant did not furnish “a proper foundation for the admission of the report” or identify an applicable hearsay exception. The court also rejected his claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the credibility of BG and AK, and for failing to object to testimony about defendant’s prior incarceration and to prosecutorial error. Affirmed.