That is, other-acts evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a may not be excluded under MRE 403 as overly prejudicial merely because it allows a jury to draw a propensity inference.” Id. To this end, “courts must weigh the propensity inference in favor of the evidence’s probative value rather than its prejudicial effect. Special consideration must be taken of prior acts evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a or else MRE 403 would essentially nullify the statute, as all such propensity evidence is highly prejudicial. “vidence admissible pursuant to MCL 768.27a may nonetheless be excluded under MRE 403 if ‘its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The prosecution supported admission of the subject evidence under MCL 768.27a(1), which provides, in relevant part: Notwithstanding, in a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of committing a listed offense against a minor, evidence that the defendant committed another listed offense against a minor is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.
#RAMME RAMME TRIAL#
We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s admission of other-acts evidence. Defendant challenges the admission of this evidence at his trial. OTHER BAD ACTS In addition to the victim’s description of the charged acts, the prosecution presented evidence that defendant was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in 2008, for engaging in sexual acts with the 15-year-old sister of his ex-girlfriend. During the second incident, defendant “groped” the victim’s breast while they were in his truck in front of her house. After her family went to bed, defendant put his hand inside the victim’s shorts and digitally penetrated her vagina. During the first incident, the victim fell asleep on a loveseat in her living room while watching television with her family and defendant. Two specific instances form the bases for defendant’s convictions. Defendant began having sexual conversations with the victim, told the victim that he had sexual fantasies about her, told the victim that he had once watched her shower, and often touched the victim in inappropriate ways. When defendant was approximately 40 years old and the victim was between the ages of 13 and 15, defendant engaged in a course of inappropriate conduct with the child. BACKGROUND Defendant is a close friend of the victim’s mother and has known the victim her whole life. Defendant further challenges the scoring of his offense variables at sentencing.
Defendant contends that the trial court improperly permitted evidence that he had been convicted in 2008 for sexual acts with a 15-yearold girl. A jury convicted defendant of third-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-III), MCL 750.520d, and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-IV), MCL 750.520e, for sexually assaulting the young teenaged daughter of a close friend. Before: O’BRIEN, P.J., and JANSEN and GLEICHER, JJ. 17-000588-FH HAKIM CARL RAMME, Defendant-Appellant.
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED MaPlaintiff-Appellee, v No. If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.