Properly sworn jury; Other acts evidence; MRE 403; Sentencing; Scoring of OVs 4 & 10; “Psychological injury”; “Vulnerable victim”; “Predatory conduct”

The court held that defendant did not show entitlement to relief on the basis of an allegedly improperly sworn jury or the admission of other acts evidence. Also, as to sentencing, the “testimony was sufficient to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the victim suffered ‘serious psychological injury [that] may require professional treatment.’” Thus, the trial court did not err in its scoring of OV 4. Finally, the trial court did not err by finding that he “engaged in predatory conduct before the sentencing offense occurred and assessing 15 points for OV 10 on that basis” He was convicted of CSC III and sentenced to 30 to 180 months. After a remand to the trial court to settle the record, the court revisited his claim that he was “entitled to a new trial because the trial court failed to properly swear in the jury at the outset of his trial.” The court noted that the “proceedings on remand revealed that this challenge was based on an error in the original trial transcript, and the now-settled record makes clear that the jury was, in fact, properly sworn in at the start of trial.” He did not offer anything to the contrary. Defendant next challenged “his conviction on the basis that the trial court, over his objection, improperly admitted” other acts evidence. The court noted that the “prosecution was permitted to introduce evidence of other, uncharged sexual encounters between defendant and the victim—both that occurred while the victim was a minor in high school, and that occurred after the victim turned 18 years old. On appeal, defendant only challenges the latter category, arguing that such evidence should have been excluded under MRE 403 because it ‘was highly inflammatory and lacked any probative value as to the charges.’” But he did “not particularly explain why this may have been so, beyond averring in conclusory fashion that ‘the prejudicial effect of the evidence was clear throughout the course of [the victim]’s testimony.’” Defendant did not offer anything “meaningful, legally or factually, to show how” the MRE 403 standard was met here. Affirmed.