CSC I; CSC II; Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27a; MRE 403; People v Watkins; Due process; People v Muniz; Children’s Protective Services (CPS) records; In camera review; MCR 6.201(C)(2); People v Stanaway

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting other acts evidence or by denying defendant access to CPS records after in camera review. He was convicted of CSC I and CSC II based on allegations that he sexually assaulted the victim repeatedly when she was a child. On appeal, the court first held that even assuming the trial court did not properly apply MRE 403, any error was harmless because the other acts evidence was highly probative and insufficiently prejudicial. Applying Watkins, the court reasoned that the other acts were substantially similar because defendant allegedly touched or attempted to touch three minor girls “under their pants while they were sleeping,” and the differences in age, timing, and frequency were not so great as to make the evidence unfairly prejudicial. The court also rejected defendant’s constitutional challenge to MCL 768.27a because Muniz held that the statute does not violate due process where it does not lower the prosecution’s burden of proof. The court next held that defendant was not entitled to the CPS records because the trial court reviewed them in camera and found nothing necessary to the defense. Under Stanaway, privileged records must be material and capable of raising a reasonable doubt, and defendant’s request amounted to a “fishing expedition” because he did not show how the records would support his defense, especially where he could have questioned the victim and her mother about delayed disclosure. Affirmed.