People of Michigan v. Anthony David Arrington, 329249

Background

Defendant Anthony Arrington, an inmate at Ionia Correctional Facility, was convicted of three counts of aggravated indecent exposure by a sexually delinquent person and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 1 day to life.
Trial testimony from six witnesses described 15 incidents in which defendant exposed and/or masturbated in front of female prison staff, including conduct before, during, and after the charged incidents.
Prosecutor admitted several uncharged acts under MRE 404(b) (prior acts) and MRE 405(b) (character-as-element), arguing they showed a pattern and sexual delinquency.
Defendant objected that the other-acts evidence was impermissible propensity evidence and unfairly prejudicial; he also challenged the indecent-exposure statute as vague and overbroad.
The trial court admitted the testimony, gave a limiting instruction, and the Court of Appeals reviewed admissibility and statutory challenges and affirmed the convictions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of other-acts evidence (pre/post incidents)	Evidence was admissible to show plan, intent, identity, and that sexual delinquency was present; relevant under MRE 404(b)/405(b).	Other-acts were improper propensity evidence and unfairly prejudicial under MRE 403.	Court held other-acts were admissible: some under MRE 405(b) (character-as-element) and others under MRE 404(b) (common plan); probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
Whether evidence showed a common plan/scheme	Other incidents sufficiently similar to charged acts to infer common plan/system.	Similarity insufficient to justify admission for non-propensity purposes.	Court found concurrence of common features (exposure, masturbation, eye contact, cell-slot display) supported inference of common plan.
MRE 403 balancing (prejudice vs probative)	Highly probative to rebut defense that incidents were private/inadvertent and to show sexual delinquency; brief testimony and limiting instruction reduced prejudice.	Cumulative and unfairly prejudicial, likely to cause conviction based on prior misconduct.	Court held probative value outweighed any unfair prejudice; admission did not constitute plain error.
Statute constitutionality (MCL 750.335a)	Statute is not vague or overbroad; construed to exclude protected expressive conduct per Miller obscene-standards.	Statute vague/overbroad and may criminalize protected sexual expression.	Court rejected challenge, relying on precedent construing statute consistent with Miller and prior rejection in People v Vronko.

Key Cases Cited

People v Starr, 457 Mich 490 (trial-court evidentiary-admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184 (definition of abuse of discretion)
People v Layher, 464 Mich 756 (de novo review for preliminary questions of law on admissibility)
People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (harmless-error standard for evidentiary error)
People v Roper, 286 Mich App 77 (relevance standard)
People v Blackston, 481 Mich 451 (MRE 403 balancing factors)
People v Golochowicz, 413 Mich 298 (danger of propensity-based character evidence)
People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52 (MRE 404(b) admissibility framework)
People v Sabin, 463 Mich 43 (similar-misconduct evidence showing common plan)
People v Steele, 283 Mich App 472 (concurrence-of-features test for plan or scheme)
People v Hine, 467 Mich 242 (uncharged-acts need only support inference of common plan)
People v Neal, 266 Mich App 654 (definitions of open and indecent exposure; Miller alignment)
Miller v California, 413 U.S. 15 (obscenity standards for limiting constitutionally protected conduct)
People v Vronko, 228 Mich App 649 (rejecting void-for-vagueness challenge to indecent-exposure statute)
People v Mills, 450 Mich 61 (unfair prejudice vs all relevant evidence)
People v Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634 (trial court’s contemporaneous MRE 403 assessment)