CSC II under MCL 750.520c(1)(b); Touching for a sexual purpose; People v DeLeon; Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27a; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v Watkins; People v Blackston; MRE 404(b); People v Smith; People v VanderVliet; Harmless error; Grooming testimony

The court held that some other acts testimony was properly admitted under MCL 768.27a, and other such testimony was properly admitted under MRE 404(b). While the trial court abused its discretion by not engaging in an MRE 404(b) analysis, the errors did not affect the trial’s outcome. The court found that grooming testimony was improperly admitted, but any error was harmless. Finally, it held that there was sufficient evidence that defendant touched the victim for a sexual purpose to support his CSC II conviction. The case arose from an incident that occurred while defendant was dating and living with a woman and her three daughters, including TP. The victim (KC) was also living there. The court first determined that admission of “testimony about defendant touching TP’s breast during a game” was proper under MCL 768.27a as it established that he “engaged in a listed offense against a minor.” And it was properly not excluded under MRE 403. The court next determined that the rest of the other acts evidence “was not admissible under MCL 768.27a because defendant’s actions and comments did not qualify as listed offenses.” But the evidence “was admissible under MRE 404(b).” The court found the trial court’s failure to conduct that analysis was harmless given that “defendant had notice and the opportunity to object to” its admission before trial due to “the prosecution’s notice of intent to introduce the same evidence under MCL 768.27a.” In addition, the other evidence of his “guilt was enough to sustain a conviction.” As to the brief reference to grooming during a detective’s testimony, “defendant amplified” this inadmissible evidence at trial. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, “KC testified that defendant touched her between her legs, i.e., her inner thigh, as she lay in bed.” Further, evidence indicated he did so intentionally, “as there was no indication” it was accidental. KC asserted that he “placed his hand underneath the blanket covering her and squeezed and groped her thigh for about three minutes. Defendant touching, squeezing, and moving his hands in a groping manner on the inner thigh of a 15-year-old girl who was lying in bed suggests that he did so for a sexual purpose, as there is not an otherwise socially reasonable or lawful explanation.” Affirmed.