Admissibility of evidence arising from a nolo contendere plea under MRE 410(a)(2); Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) registration; Parental-rights termination order; Lichon v American Universal Ins Co; Permissible use of fact of conviction; Impeachment under MRE 609; MCL 768.27a(1); MRE 401, 403, & 404(b); Harmless error

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of defendant-father’s CSC IV conviction, SORA registration, and termination of parental rights because plaintiff-mother sought to use those consequences of his nolo contendere plea as substantive proof that he sexually abused AC, a use prohibited by MRE 410(a)(2). He had pled nolo contendere to CSC IV after being charged based on the same alleged abuse underlying plaintiff’s civil claims for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As a result, he registered as a Tier III sex offender and later voluntarily consented to termination of his parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(m). Before trial, plaintiff sought to admit the conviction, SORA registration, and termination order to show that defendant had molested AC. The trial court excluded the evidence under MRE 410, and the jury found defendant not liable. On appeal, the court concluded that plaintiff’s proposed use of the evidence was impermissible. Although a conviction resulting from a nolo contendere plea may sometimes be admitted when “the fact of conviction” is itself legally significant, plaintiff sought to use the evidence to prove the underlying misconduct. The court explained this “amounted to the impermissible collateral use of defendant’s plea as an admission of misconduct, which MRE 410 prohibits.” It further emphasized that, at “bottom, plaintiff sought to present defendant’s conviction, his SORA registration, and the order terminating his parental rights as proof of an admission that he sexually molested his daughter.” Those proofs therefore constituted “‘evidence of’ defendant’s nolo contendere plea” whose proposed use was barred by MRE 410. Plaintiff’s new impeachment theory was waived and, in any event, she did not show that CSC IV satisfied MRE 609. The court also rejected her reliance on MCL 768.27a because that provision applies to criminal cases. Finally, plaintiff failed to show that any error was outcome determinative given the evidence actually presented to the jury. Affirmed.