CSC II; MCL 750.520c(1)(b); Domestic violence; MCL 750.81(2); Other acts evidence; Listed offense; MCL 768.27a; MRE 403; People v Watkins; MRE 404(b); Harmless error; Sufficiency of the evidence; Sexual contact; MCL 750.520a; Impeachment evidence exclusion

The court held that most challenged testimony was properly admitted, that any error in admitting other testimony was harmless, and that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s CSC II convictions. He was convicted after evidence showed he touched his stepdaughters’ upper inner thighs and engaged in other inappropriate conduct. The court first held that testimony that defendant touched the victims’ inner thighs and lifted one victim’s shirt was admissible because it directly related to the charged CSC II and domestic-violence offenses. It also found testimony that defendant touched another minor’s buttock and breast was admissible under MCL 768.27a because it involved CSC IV, a listed offense, and its “propensity inference” weighed in favor of probative value under Watkins. But the court noted that testimony stating defendant barged into the girls’ bedroom and put donuts into their mouths while they wore towels was improperly admitted because those acts were not listed offenses and risked “‘an impermissible character-to-conduct inference.’” The error was not outcome determinative because the admissible testimony from the victims and another witness supplied ample evidence that defendant touched intimate parts for a sexual purpose. The court next held that sufficient evidence supported CSC II because the victims testified defendant grabbed and squeezed their inner thighs near the hipbone, did not touch the boys that way, and gradually moved closer to one victim’s vaginal area. Finally, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding social-media photographs offered to impeach one victim because their probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Affirmed.