This 4/3 opinion of the Michigan Supreme Court resolves the conflict between a statute that allows evidence of "prior bad acts" of the accused in sexual assault cases, and the more restrictive evidentiary rule that, until now, had governed the introduction of prior bad acts.
MRE 404(b) was considered a safeguard to the introduction of "prior bad acts". The evidence offered could not be offered to support the prosecutor's proposition that the accused acted in conformity with a propensity to commit the charged conduct. There had to be something more; like a pattern of conduct, or a scheme, plan or system. Splitting hairs here, if you ask me...
The statute applicable in sexual assault cases, on the other hand, evidence of prior bad can be considered by a jury for it bearing on any matter that is relevant.
The majority opinion written by Justice Zahra, holds that the statute controls, and that trial courts must review the proffered "prior bad acts" evidence for its probative value, not its prejudicial effect. So much for the traditional balancing test of MRE 403.
The dissent written by Justice Marilyn Kelly is troubled that the legislature has usurped the function of the judiciary by promulgating this statute. It is for trial courts, not the legislature, according to Justice Kelly, to determine the relevance and thus, the admissibility, of specific evidence.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.