Domestic violence; Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27b; People v Berklund; Relevance; MRE 401; MRE 402; People v Denson; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v Watkins; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object; People v Ericksen; Due process; Constitutionality of MCL 768.27b; People v Muniz

The court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to other-acts evidence and that MCL 768.27b did not violate defendant’s due-process rights. Defendant was convicted of felonious assault and domestic violence after testimony showed that, while intoxicated, he grabbed his girlfriend by the neck, shoved her daughter’s head into a counter, and held a kitchen knife to the daughter’s boyfriend’s throat. On appeal, the court first held that evidence of defendant’s 2019 domestic-violence conviction was admissible under MCL 768.27b because it occurred within 10 years, involved domestic violence, was relevant, and survived MRE 403 balancing. The court found the evidence material because defendant denied assaulting the victim, and it was probative because MCL 768.27b permits other domestic-violence acts to be used for propensity purposes. The court further emphasized that the 2019 incident was strongly similar because, in both cases, defendant was intoxicated, lived with his girlfriend, assaulted her “by grabbing her by the neck,” assaulted the girlfriend’s daughter, and claimed he was attacked first. Applying Watkins, the court concluded that the evidence was reliable because it resulted in a conviction, was useful to corroborate the victim’s testimony, and was not more inflammatory than the charged conduct. Counsel was not ineffective because an objection would have been meritless. Finally, relying on Muniz, the court held that MCL 768.27b is constitutional because it allows propensity evidence but “does not lower the quantum of proof” required for conviction, and MRE 401 and MRE 403 provide adequate safeguards. Affirmed.