People of Michigan v. Victor Devon Fitzpatrick, 330086

Defendant (Victor Fitzpatrick) was convicted of two counts first-degree CSC and two counts second-degree CSC for sexually assaulting his 14-year-old cousin while she slept at a relative’s home; sentence: 330 months–50 years (first-degree) and 15–30 years (second-degree).
Victim awoke to defendant rubbing his penis on her butt, then was orally and vaginally penetrated; assault stopped when someone knocked on a door; victim reported to family the next day and underwent a forensic/medical exam.
A nurse testified (over defense objection) about the victim’s account given during the medical exam and about a 3/4" abrasion consistent with the report; no saliva/semen was found.
Prosecution introduced evidence of an uncharged 2006 sexual assault by defendant on another young relative in similar circumstances (approached a sleeping relative and removed pants/penetrated her). Defense did not object at trial to that testimony.
On appeal, defendant challenged (1) admission of the nurse’s testimony as hearsay and (2) admission of the 2006 other-acts evidence; he also claimed ineffective assistance for failing to object to the other-acts evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of nurse’s testimony about victim’s statements	Nurse’s report was either non‑hearsay (used to explain medical care) or admissible under the medical‑treatment hearsay exception (MRE 803(4))	Testimony was hearsay and inadmissible	Court affirmed: testimony admissible as non‑hearsay or under MRE 803(4) because statements were reasonably necessary for diagnosis/treatment and declarant had motive to be truthful
Admission of 2006 other‑acts evidence	Offered for non‑propensity purpose (common scheme/plan); relevant and not unfairly prejudicial	Evidence improperly showed propensity and was unfairly prejudicial	Waived by defendant’s failure to object; on merits, admission proper under MRE 404(b) (sufficient similarity; limiting instruction reduced prejudice)
Plain‑error review of unpreserved other‑acts objection	N/A	Admission was plain error requiring reversal	No plain error: probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; limiting instruction adequate
Ineffective assistance for not objecting to other‑acts evidence	Counsel’s failure rendered assistance ineffective	Counsel not ineffective because any objection would have been meritless	Denied: no deficient performance because the evidence was properly admissible

People v. Mahone, 294 Mich. App. 208 (medical‑treatment hearsay exception applies when statements reasonably necessary for diagnosis and declarant motivated to be truthful)
People v. Duenaz, 306 Mich. App. 85 (collection of evidence during medical exam does not negate medical purpose for MRE 803(4))
People v. Musser, 494 Mich. 337 (distinguishing hearsay offered for non‑truth purpose)
People v. VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (framework for admitting other‑acts evidence)
People v. Knox, 469 Mich. 502 (reciting VanderVliet approach)
People v. Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich. 43 (similar‑misconduct relevance to show common plan/scheme)
People v. Steele, 283 Mich. App. 472 (high degree of similarity not required for other‑acts admissibility)
People v. Martzke, 251 Mich. App. 282 (limiting instruction can cure prejudice from other‑acts evidence)
People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (jurors presumed to follow limiting instructions)
People v. Putman, 309 Mich. App. 240 (counsel need not raise meritless objections)