Sufficiency of the evidence for an unlawful imprisonment (MCL 750.349b) conviction; “Restrain”; Other acts evidence; MCL 768.27b; MRE 403; Constitutional challenge to MCL 768.27b; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 8; MCL 777.38(1)(a); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to raise a futile objection

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s unlawful imprisonment conviction, including properly admitted other acts evidence. Further, the trial court properly scored 15 points for OV 8 and thus, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the score. Defendant was also convicted of AWIGBH and domestic violence arising from an incident with his then girlfriend. He asserted that he did not “forcibly confine the victim to interfere with her ability to leave the room.” This ignored her testimony. “Before she successfully fled the room, there were two instances where [she] was able to separate herself from defendant but was unable to escape from the vicinity” because he grabbed her by her neck. And by doing so, he “was able to squeeze the victim’s neck for a second and third time. Thus, [her] testimony provided a sufficient basis for a rational jury to find that (1) defendant knowingly restrained [her] by forcibly restricting her movement, i.e., grabbing her by the neck so she could not move to a different area of the home, and (2)” his restraining her facilitated his assault. As to the admission of other acts evidence from defendant’s former partner under MCL 768.27b, the “other acts involved defendant assaulting a former partner while intoxicated[,]” as did this case. While the assault here may have been more severe, “the other acts were significantly useful to corroborate the victim’s testimony and provide context to defendant’s behavior in his relationships.” The court noted that the jury was properly instructed, and jurors are presumed to follow their instructions. The “possible unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the significant probative value of the former partner’s testimony.” The court also rejected his constitutional challenge to MCL 768.27b. Finally, defendant’s dragging the victim across the room after he caught her when she tried to escape indicated that she “was carried from one place to another. Additionally, the victim was in more danger after being dragged by defendant; she was farther from a safe exit and closer to defendant who posed a great risk to her.” This, and the fact that he continued to restrain her “beyond the time necessary to commit the offense[,]” supported the 15-point score for OV 8. Affirmed.