Right to present a defense; Exclusion of evidence of an alleged domestic violence incident between the victim & her ex-boyfriend; The “reverse Rule 404(b) doctrine”; United States v Seals (7th Cir); Character evidence; MRE 404(a)(1); Lack of any argument as to MRE 403; Sufficiency of the evidence for an unlawful imprisonment conviction; MCL 750.349b; People v Railer; “Restrain”; “Secretly confine”; Knowing restraint to facilitate the commission of another felony; Denial of request for a self-defense instruction; People v Dupree; Harmless error; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 7; MCL 777.37(1)(a); “Torture”

The court held that defendant was not denied his right to present a defense by the exclusion of evidence about an alleged domestic violence incident between the victim (AS) and her ex-boyfriend, and that there was sufficient evidence to support his unlawful imprisonment conviction. Further, even if the trial court should have instructed the jury on self-defense, failing to do so was not outcome determinative in light of the evidence. Finally, the court held that “defendant’s conduct constituted ‘torture,’” supporting the 50-point score for OV 7. He was also convicted of AWIGBH and domestic violence. The court found that his “claim that the reverse 404(b) evidence was offered to support his self-defense claim flows from character evidence that AS acted in conformity with her trait for violence or aggression. This type of character evidence” was not admissible here. While he asserted as to MRE 404(b) that the evidence about “AS’s alleged prior arrest was admissible because it was not offered simply as proof of AS’s character, but for the proper, nonpropensity purpose of supporting his claim of self-defense[,]” he failed to meaningfully develop this contention. He also did not make any argument as to MRE 403. The court next concluded that the evidence was “more than sufficient to sustain” his unlawful imprisonment “conviction because he restricted AS’s movements by threat of violence, AS’s testimony suggests he did so to commit AWIGBH, and because he took actions to attempt to keep AS’s confinement a secret.” As to the self-defense instruction issue, the court determined that defendant did introduce sufficient evidence to show that he acted intentionally. But he could not “demonstrate that it was more probable than not that the failure to provide the instruction was outcome determinative. A staggering amount of evidence was introduced” to support the prosecution’s theory that defendant committed AWIGBH, including photos and the testimony of other witnesses that corroborated AS’s testimony. He did not offer any rebuttal evidence apart from his own testimony. The evidence showed that he “battered and strangled AS, conduct that had the potential to cause grievous bodily injury in this case.” The court concluded that no reasonable juror would have found he acted in self-defense. Affirmed.