relevancy requirement in Michigan

2019Our Supreme Court has held that the following four-part test applies to evaluating the admissibility of other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b): First, that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b); second, that it be relevant under Rule 402 as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; fourth, that the trial court may, upon request, provide a limiting -14- instruction to the jury. [People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 55 ; 508 NW2d 114 (1993), amended 445 Mich 1205 (1994).] In the context

2019Our Supreme Court has held that the following four-part test applies to evaluating the admissibility of other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b): First, that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b); second, that it be relevant under Rule 402 as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; fourth, that the trial court may, upon request, provide a limiting -14- instruction to the jury. [People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 55 ; 508 NW2d 114 (1993), amended 445 Mich 1205 (1994).] In the context

1999There, the United States Supreme Court adopted a similar rule relating to other-acts evidence: [F]irst, from the requirement of Rule 404(b) that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose; second, from the relevancy requirement of Rule 402—as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, from the assessment the trial court must make under Rule 403 to determine whether the probative value of the similar acts evidence is substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice, see Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed Rule Evid 404(b), 28 USC App, p 691; S Rep No 93-1277 at 25; and fourth, from the

1993In place of the four-pronged test of Golochowicz , we direct the bench and bar to employ the evidentiary safeguards already present in the Rules of Evidence, as identified by the unanimous United States Supreme Court decision in Huddleston : [FJirst, from the requirement of Rule 404(b) that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose; second, from the relevancy requirement of Rule 402— as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, from the assessment the trial court must make under Rule 403 to determine whether the probative value of the similar acts evidence is substantially outweighed by its pote

2020This Court concluded that “the implied consent statute and the policy regarding drinking and driving support the conclusion that the only prerequisite to admission of blood alcohol test results is a threshold relevancy requirement, as codified in MRE 401, 402, and 403.” Id. at 506 .

2019Our Supreme Court has held that the following four-part test applies to evaluating the admissibility of other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b): First, that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b); second, that it be relevant under Rule 402 as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; fourth, that the trial court may, upon request, provide a limiting -14- instruction to the jury. [People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 55 ; 508 NW2d 114 (1993), amended 445 Mich 1205 (1994).] In the context

2019However, in its ruling on the admissibility of this evidence, the trial court also cited an unpublished opinion of this Court14 that relied on Michigan Supreme Court precedent stating that “evidence underlying the basis of an expert opinion” is generally admissible subject to the relevancy requirement and MRE 403, Pickens, 446 Mich at 334-336 , citing MRE 703 and MRE 705, and that “signs of past physical abuse of [a] child [are] relevant to prove that his subsequent fatal injuries were not inflicted accidentally,” People v Knox, 469 Mich 502, 513 ; 674 NW2d 366 (2004).

2019The Pickens Court reasoned that evidence underlying the basis for an expert’s opinion “is relevant because it places the expert’s opinions into a factual context, thereby enabling the trier of fact to determine the weight due an expert’s opinion.” Pickens, 446 Mich at 335 .

2019However, in its ruling on the admissibility of this evidence, the trial court also cited an unpublished opinion of this Court14 that relied on Michigan Supreme Court precedent stating that “evidence underlying the basis of an expert opinion” is generally admissible subject to the relevancy requirement and MRE 403, Pickens, 446 Mich at 334-336 , citing MRE 703 and MRE 705, and that “signs of past physical abuse of [a] child [are] relevant to prove that his subsequent fatal injuries were not inflicted accidentally,” People v Knox, 469 Mich 502, 513 ; 674 NW2d 366 (2004).

2019However, in its ruling on the admissibility of this evidence, the trial court also cited an unpublished opinion of this Court14 that relied on Michigan Supreme Court precedent stating that “evidence underlying the basis of an expert opinion” is generally admissible subject to the relevancy requirement and MRE 403, Pickens, 446 Mich at 334-336 , citing MRE 703 and MRE 705, and that “signs of past physical abuse of [a] child [are] relevant to prove that his subsequent fatal injuries were not inflicted accidentally,” People v Knox, 469 Mich 502, 513 ; 674 NW2d 366 (2004).

2016In short, at this stage of the proceedings, defendant’s differing version of events does not mandate exclusion of the other-acts evidence, and by allowing defendant’s credibility arguments to control, the trial court failed to conduct the proper relevancy analysis. 5 Cf. Mardlin, 487 Mich at 625-626 .

2015Woodington v Shokoohi, 288 Mich App 352, 363 ; 792 NW2d 63 (2010).

2015Woodington v Shokoohi, 288 Mich App 352, 363 ; 792 NW2d 63 (2010).

2014In other words, the ACOG criteria would not fulfill the relevancy requirement incorporated within MRE 702. “[E]ven proposed expert testimony that is offered by a qualified expert and based on reliable scientific data and methods may be properly excluded if it is not relevant to the facts of the case[.]” People v Kowalski, 492 Mich 106, 122 ; 821 NW2d 14 (2012).

2014In other words, the ACOG criteria would not fulfill the relevancy requirement incorporated within MRE 702. “[E]ven proposed expert testimony that is offered by a qualified expert and based on reliable scientific data and methods may be properly excluded if it is not relevant to the facts of the case[.]” People v Kowalski, 492 Mich 106, 122 ; 821 NW2d 14 (2012).

1999Under this standard for admissibility, we agree with the reasoning of Judge Smolenski in his dissenting opinion in People v Wager, 233 Mich App 1, 13 , that “[finding nothing inherently unreasonable” solely in the delay between the time of the offense and the time of the blood test, we are “unwilling to second-guess the trial court’s considerable discretion.” In the case before us, the district court was aware that there was a delay between the accident and the blood test of about two hours and twenty-four minutes, and that defendant denied having ingested any alcohol after the accident.

1998Community Nat’l Bank of Pontiac v Michigan Basic Property Ins Ass’n, 159 Mich App 510, 520-521 ; 407 NW2d 31 (1987).

1998Community Nat’l Bank of Pontiac v Michigan Basic Property Ins Ass’n, 159 Mich App 510, 520-521 ; 407 NW2d 31 (1987).