People v. Kelly
317 Mich. App. 637
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant charged with kidnapping, three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, and assault with intent to commit CSC for an alleged April 2008 sexual assault of SH; DNA from the assault matched defendant and defendant does not dispute sexual contact occurred.
- Defendant’s defense: SH consented and the encounter was commercial (prostitution); prosecution’s theory: this incident is one of eight similar sexual assaults (1985–2010) across four states with similar modus operandi (isolating victims, use of weapon/violence, no condom, ejaculation); DNA links defendant to five of the incidents.
- Prosecution filed an MRE 404(b) notice seeking admission of evidence of the seven other alleged assaults to show intent and a common scheme/plan; prosecution abandoned identity and motive theories on appeal.
- Trial court excluded the other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b) and MRE 403, reasoning that lack of convictions and credibility disputes over consent made the other-acts evidence of “no use” and unduly prejudicial.
- Appellate court granted interlocutory review and held the trial court abused its discretion by failing to follow the MRE 404(b) legal framework, vacating the MRE 404(b) analysis and remanding for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Prosecution's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b) | Other-acts evidence is admissible to show intent and common scheme/plan; evidence is relevant and probative | Other acts are mere allegations, lack convictions, amount to propensity evidence and would be unfairly prejudicial | Court: Vacated exclusion; trial court failed to apply proper MRE 404(b) four-prong and improperly weighed credibility and lack of convictions; remand for proper analysis |
| Whether trial court may reject other-acts evidence because the acts were uncharged/no convictions | Prosecution: Uncharged acts or acquittals do not bar MRE 404(b) admissibility; relevance persists | Defendant: Lack of convictions undermines probative value and increases unfair prejudice | Court: Trial court erred to treat lack of convictions as dispositive; admissibility should be evaluated under MRE 404(b) and MRE 403, not excluded for that reason alone |
| Whether trial court may resolve credibility about conditional facts when assessing relevance under MRE 104(b) | Prosecution: Court should assess whether jury could reasonably find conditional facts; not resolve credibility pretrial | Defendant: Credibility disputes (consent) mean evidence has no use and should be excluded | Court: Trial court improperly weighed credibility; under Huddleston/VanderVliet it should decide only whether a jury could reasonably find the conditional fact, not resolve credibility |
| Whether trial court must apply the VanderVliet four-prong framework (proper purpose, relevance, balance, limiting instruction) | Prosecution: Trial court must apply the four-prong test and evaluate probative value relative to prejudice for each act as needed | Defendant: Aggregated prejudice and age of incidents outweigh probative value | Court: Trial court failed to follow the required framework; remand to apply VanderVliet and consider each act separately if appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Waclawski, 286 Mich. App. 634 (trial-court discretion standard for admissibility of other acts)
- People v Mardlin, 487 Mich. 609 (conditioning relevance on jury’s ability to find conditional fact; defendant’s innocent explanations do not control admissibility)
- People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (four-prong MRE 404(b) framework)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (standard for conditional relevance under Rule 104(b): jury could reasonably find the conditional fact)
- People v Rock (Rock v. Crocker), 499 Mich. 247 (trial court must address probative value relative to prejudice under MRE 403 after relevance is established)
- People v Crawford, 458 Mich. 376 (other-acts evidence inadmissible to prove propensity)
- People v Oliphant, 399 Mich. 472 (other-acts evidence admissible to rebut consent defenses via proof of common plan)