Joinder; MCR 6.120(A)-(C); People v. Gaines; “Related” offenses; MCR 6.120(B)(1); People v. Williams; Whether the offenses were acts constituting parts of a single scheme or plan; MCR 6.120(B)(1)(c); Whether a separate jury should be empaneled to decide a sexual delinquency charge; MCL 767.61a; MCR 6.120(B); People v. Breidenbach; People v. Helzer; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); People v. Sabin (After Remand); People v. Ho; People v. Knox; Relevance & unfair prejudice; MRE 402 & 403; People v. McGhee; Principle that all elements of a charged offense are “at issue” when a defendant pleads not guilty; People v. Crawford; Principle that identity is an element of every offense; People v. Yost; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Uphaus (On Remand); People v. Hoag; Trial strategy; People v. Russell; People v. Horn; A substantial defense; People v. Dixon; Prosecutorial error; Frazier v. Cupp; People v. Schaw; Right to counsel; People v. Jackson; People v. Strickland; People v. Traylor; Search & seizure; U.S. Const. amend. IV; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11; People v. Champion; People v. Cohen; Right to testify; People v. Bonilla-Machado; The fair-cross-section jury requirement; Duren v. Missouri; Double jeopardy; U.S. Const. amend. V; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 15; People v. Nutt; People v. Franklin; People v. McKinley; Remedy; People v. Herron; Sentencing for indecent exposure as a sexually delinquent person; MCL 750.335a(2)(c); People v. Campbell

The court held that the trial court did not err by joining the defendant’s two cases, by denying his request for a separate jury on one of the charges, or by admitting other acts evidence. However, his convictions for aggravated indecent exposure and indecent exposure by a sexually delinquent person violated double jeopardy. Thus, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing. His convictions arose out of two separate incidents of public masturbation. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by joining the two cases for trial. It found the charged offenses were “related,” noting that, in each case, he went to a public gathering area, “sat down near a young woman, pulled his penis out of his pants, and rubbed it. While the offenses were of the same character, they were also acts constituting parts of a single scheme or plan. The offenses were acts in defendant’s scheme of using unsuspecting young women, who were in a gathering area of a public place, to obtain sexual gratification.” The facts of the offenses were not complex and presented minimal potential for confusion, and “evidence of each offense would have been admissible under MRE 404(b) in a trial on the other offense to prove defendant’s identity and that he had a common scheme, plan, or system of doing the acts.” The court also rejected his claim that the trial court erred by denying his request for a separate jury on the charges of indecent exposure by a sexually delinquent person. “Because the evidence overlapped, the jury did not have to limit its use of any of the evidence presented at trial to separately determine if the charged offenses occurred or if defendant was a sexually delinquent person.” It next rejected his contention that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his prior acts of sexual impropriety that occurred in 2014 and 2004. “In the two incidents, as in the charged offenses, while in a public area where people could gather, defendant sat down near a young woman and masturbated.” Further, because the evidence “was highly probative to the issue of whether the charged offenses occurred, the risk of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” The court rejected most of the arguments in his Standard IV brief as meritless. However, it found that his convictions violated double jeopardy, and he was entitled to resentencing on his indecent exposure by a sexually delinquent person conviction.