Exclusion of evidence; Admissibility of text messages under MRE 803(3); People v Moorer; MRE 403; Whether error was outcome-determinative

The court held that the text messages defendant sought to admit fell squarely within MRE 803(3) and thus, the trial court erred in excluding them. Further, they “were highly probative of the central issue of the case,” and the court concluded that their exclusion “more probably than not was outcome determinative and” undermined the verdict’s reliability. Thus, it vacated his CSC III convictions and sentences, and remanded. The complainant (M) sent defendant the messages “contemporaneously with the alleged” offenses. In the messages, she “expressed great satisfaction with the couple’s sexual activity.” The court determined that they fell within the MRE 803(3) hearsay exception in light of “the nature of the allegations against defendant, the nature of the” messages M sent him “during the time frame that the charged conduct was alleged to have occurred, and the purpose for the proposed admission of the evidence, i.e., showing [M’s] then-existing state of mind[.]” Further, the central issue in this case was whether he “used force or coercion to engage in sexual penetration of” M. The court found that her “text messages that ‘we have the best sex and I will never be happier with my sex life than I am with ours,’ that she is passionately in love with defendant, that she wants to marry [him], have children with [him], and grow old with [him], refute the primary evidence offered by the prosecution, being [M’s] testimony that during the relationship she was frequently forced or coerced by defendant to have sex without her consent.” As to whether the error was outcome-determinative, the text messages stood “in stark contrast to [M’s] allegations, made the day after the couple ended the relationship, that defendant repeatedly sexually assaulted her.” The court also noted “that during deliberations, the jury requested to see” the text messages, “which the trial court denied because [they] were not in evidence, suggesting that the jury would have considered” their content if they had not been excluded. And after initially reporting that they were deadlocked, the jury later returned a guilty verdict “on two counts while remaining deadlocked on” the third.