People v. Watkins; People v. Pullen
491 Mich. 450
| Mich. | 2012Background
- The Court holds MCL 768.27a(1) permits evidence of another listed offense against a minor to be admissible for any relevant matter, overriding MRE 404(b).
- The statute applies in cases charging a listed minor-offense and governs admissibility despite the standard rules of evidence.
- Docket No. 142031 concerns Watkins, charged with multiple CSC offenses against a 12-year-old; EW testified to additional acts under MCL 768.27a.
- Docket No. 142751 concerns Pullen, charged with CSC-II and aggravated indecent exposure; the 1989 police report of prior acts was excluded under MRE 403 after balancing.
- The Court held MCL 768.27a conflicts with MRE 404(b) and that the statute prevails, but evidence under 768.27a remains subject to MRE 403’s balancing.
- The Court remands Pullen for further proceedings consistent with applying MRE 403, and affirms Watkins’ outcome with respect to the admissibility framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MCL 768.27a irreconcilably conflict with MRE 404(b)? | Watkins: statute conflicts and supersedes rule of evidence. | Watkins: the statute can coexist but may implicate procedural limits; disagreement on supremacy. | Yes, irreconcilable conflict; statute prevails. |
| Does MCL 768.27a prevail over MRE 404(b) under separation-of-powers principles? | Watkins: Legislature may enact substantive rules that override court rules. | Watkins: court rules control admissibility; Legislature cannot override. | MCL 768.27a prevails over MRE 404(b). |
| Is evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a still subject to MRE 403 balancing? | Watkins: yes, subject to MRE 403 balancing for prejudice/value. | Pullen: MRE 403 applies via 768.27b or as constitutionally required. | Yes, MRE 403 applies; balancing required. |
| How should courts apply MRE 403 to 768.27a evidence (propensity inference, factors, instructions)? | Propensity inferences should be weighed toward probative value; avoid diluting 768.27a purpose. | Balancing may consider dissimilarity, timing, frequency, reliability, and need. | Courts must weigh the propensity inference in favor of probative value; consider listed factors; use CJI2d 20.28a when appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Pattison, 276 Mich App 613 (2007) (recognizes MCL 768.27a as conflicting with MRE 404(b) and discusses separation of powers)
- McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15 (1999) (distinguishes procedural versus substantive rules; McDougall framework used to assess 768.27a)
- People v Watkins, 489 Mich 863 (2011) (Michigan Supreme Court decision addressing 768.27a conflict with 404(b) and 403)