Prosecutorial misconduct; Other-acts of domestic violence; MCL 768.27b; People v Cameron; Sufficiency of the evidence; People v Xun Wang; Great weight of the evidence; People v Lemmon

The court held that the prosecutor’s closing-argument comment that the complainant had “been in an abusive relationship for years” was a permissible inference from the record and did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct warranting a new trial. The complainant called 911 reporting she was “severely intoxicated,” had “hurt [her] wrist,” and later acknowledged an altercation with defendant, and medical records reflected statements that defendant “hit her multiple times in the head with a closed fist” and that she injured her wrist and thumb “while blocking.” A district-court jury convicted defendant of second-offense domestic violence. His motion for a new-trial was denied. On appeal the circuit court vacated the conviction on prosecutorial-misconduct grounds while otherwise rejecting defendant’s remaining new-trial theories. The court first held that, evaluated “in context of the entire record,” the prosecutor’s argument that the complainant was “terrified” and had “been in an abusive relationship for years” was “a reasonable inference in light of the evidence,” pointing to the 2018 incident she admitted involved a “physical altercation” with bruising and an arrest, her 911 statements that the police could not protect her and her question about “domestic violence,” and her hospital statements about being struck and feeling safe only “[s]ometimes.” The court next held the 2018 incident evidence was admissible under MCL 768.27b because it provided a “full and complete picture” of the parties’ history and its probative value was not “substantially outweighed” by unfair prejudice under MRE 403, particularly given the limited and non-inflammatory nature of the testimony and the need for evidence beyond the complainant’s trial recantation. The court also held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find an assault under MCL 750.81(2) because the jury could credit the 911 call and medical statements over the complainant’s trial denial, and it rejected the great-weight challenge because credibility disputes generally belong to the jury absent “exceptional circumstances.” Reversed in part and affirmed in part.