Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); People v VanderVliet; People v Denson; MRE 401 & 402; MRE 403; Expert testimony from a pathologist; MRE 702; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to file a discovery demand; Failure to request M Crim JI 7.2 (accident); People v Hawthorne; Motion to suppress defendant’s police statements; “Custody”; People v Barritt

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other acts evidence or in admitting a pathologist’s expert testimony. It also rejected defendant’s claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a discovery demand as to the pathologist and for failing to request M Crim JI 7.2. Finally, it held that the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress certain statements he made to the police as they were made voluntarily and without prompting. Further, any error would have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the other evidence. He was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, failure to stop at the scene of an accident causing death, and concealing the death of an individual. The other acts evidence related to his internet search history. Applying the VanderVliet test, the court noted the “prosecution cited motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, scheme, plan, absence of mistake, and lack of accident as proper noncharacter purposes for admission of the evidence. This recitation” satisfied the first prong. As to the second prong, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in “ruling that the evidence was both material and probative under MRE 401 and” 402 as “to the evidence preceding his encounter with the victim. The prosecution” contended that evidence “defendant accessed pornographic material preceding his encounter with the victim was relevant to establish motive.” In light of “the charges against defendant, his accessing pornographic material related to necrophilia and sex acts with incapacitated women was relevant to establishing that [he] struck the victim with his vehicle with the intent to kill her and motive to fulfill his fantasy. In short, the evidence preceding his encounter with the victim was logically relevant for a proper purpose under MRE 404(b).” The court also found that evidence he purportedly watched “pornography after striking the victim with his truck, including paid online live cameras with naked women, was logically relevant to showing absence of mistake and lack of accident[.]” As to the third VanderVliet prong, “the probative value of the evidence both before and after striking the victim with his truck was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice for” MRE 403 purposes. Affirmed.