CSC I & II; Mentally disabled victim; MCL 750.520b(1)(h); MCL 750.520c(1)(h); Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27b; MRE 403; People v Berklund; People v Watkins; Harmless error; Victim’s prior statements; MCL 768.27c; Temporal requirement; People v Meissner; Trustworthiness

The court held that the trial court erred by admitting other-acts testimony under MCL 768.27b, but the error was harmless, and that the victim’s statements to the detective were admissible under MCL 768.27c. Defendant was convicted of CSC I and II involving a 14-year-old victim with autism who temporarily lived on his property. The court first held that the prior victim’s testimony had some relevance because both allegations involved defendant sexually assaulting someone with whom he had a domestic relationship, supporting “a logical inference that defendant may have a propensity to sexually assault people with whom he shares a domestic relationship.” But it held that the testimony should have been excluded under MRE 403 because the prior victim was an adult woman who shared a child with defendant, while the victim here was a teenage boy temporarily staying on defendant’s property, and the trial court itself was concerned about the testimony’s “emotional effect” on the jury. However, the error was harmless because the victim “testified in detail regarding defendant’s repeated assaults” and described the sexual acts underlying each charge. The court next held that the victim’s statements to the detective satisfied MCL 768.27c. Relying on Meissner, it held the statements were made “at or near” the time of injury, and it rejected defendant’s trustworthiness challenge because the victim’s testimony corroborated the statements and the detective’s use of forensic interview protocols further supported trustworthiness. Affirmed.