Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); Knowledge & absence of mistake; People v Denson; People v Bergman; MRE 403; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Consecutive sentencing; MCL 769.36(1)(b); Particularized reasons; People v Norfleet

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting other acts evidence of defendant’s 2017 impaired-driving incident, but remand was required because the trial court failed to articulate particularized reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. Defendant was convicted after she drove into a line of bicyclists while intoxicated, killing two riders and seriously injuring two others. The trial court admitted evidence that she had a 2017 impaired-driving incident involving controlled substances, and it ordered her two second-degree murder sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, the court held that the other acts evidence was admitted for proper noncharacter purposes: knowledge and absence of mistake. It reasoned the evidence was relevant because the 2017 incident was “probative of defendant’s knowledge of her inability to drive safely after consuming [controlled] substances.” Further, the two events were substantially similar because they involved some of the same or similar drug classes, unsafe driving, confusion, balance issues, and difficulty following directions. The court also held that MRE 403 did not bar the evidence because the 2017 event was “minor in comparison to the charged offenses,” and the trial court instructed jurors they could not use it to conclude defendant was “a bad person” or likely to commit crimes. But the court held that remand was required on consecutive sentencing because the trial court did not give “particularized reasons” for making Count 2 consecutive to Count 1, and appellate review was hindered because consecutive sentencing is a “drastic deviation from the norm.” Affirmed in part and remanded with jurisdiction retained.