People v. Watkins

Decision Date08 June 2012
Docket NumberCalendar Nos. 9,10.,142751.,Docket Nos. 142031
Citation818 N.W.2d 296,491 Mich. 450
PartiesPEOPLE v. WATKINS. People v. Pullen.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

491 Mich. 450
818 N.W.2d 296

PEOPLE
v.
WATKINS.
People
v.
Pullen.

Docket Nos. 142031, 142751.
Calendar Nos. 9, 10.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued Nov. 8, 2011.
Decided June 8, 2012.


[818 N.W.2d 298]


Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training and Appeals, for the people in Watkins.

State Appellate Defender (by Gail Rodwan) for Lincoln Watkins.


Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, Kurt C. Asbury, Prosecuting Attorney, and Sylvia L. Linton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people in Pullen.

Bay Justice Associates, P.C., Bay City (by Edward M. Czuprynski), for Richard Pullen.

John R. Minock and Randy E. Davidson for the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, Richard A. Bandstra, Chief Legal Counsel, and Mark G. Sands, Assistant Attorney General, for the Attorney General.

Opinion of the Court

ZAHRA, J.

[491 Mich. 455]These consolidated cases involve MCL 768.27a(1), which provides in relevant part that “in a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of committing a listed offense against a minor, evidence that the defendant committed another listed

[818 N.W.2d 299]

offense against a minor is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.” 1 We hold that MCL 768.27a irreconcilably conflicts with MRE 404(b), which bars the admission of other-acts evidence for the purpose of showing a defendant's propensity to commit similar acts, and that the statute prevails over the court rule because it does not impermissibly infringe on this Court's authority regarding [491 Mich. 456]rules of practice and procedure under Const. 1963, art. 6, § 5. We also hold that evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a remains subject to MRE 403, which provides that a court may exclude relevant evidence if the danger of unfair prejudice, among other considerations, outweighs the evidence's probative value.2 In applying the balancing test in MRE 403 to evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a, however, courts must weigh the propensity inference in favor of the evidence's probative value rather than its prejudicial effect. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in People v. Watkins, Docket No. 142031, vacate the judgments of the lower courts in People v. Pullen, Docket No. 142751, and remand the latter case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. DOCKET NO. 142031

In Docket No. 142031, defendant, Lincoln Anderson Watkins, appeals by leave granted the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming his convictions and sentences. Watkins was charged with five counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC–I) 3 and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC–II) 4 for allegedly molesting a 12–year–old girl.

The Court of Appeals summarized the allegations of sexual abuse that the prosecution presented at the pretrial stage:

[491 Mich. 457]The victim in the instant case was a 12–year–old girl whose family lived next door to defendant and whose father was defendant's business partner. The victim had known defendant and his wife since she was two years old and regarded defendant as a father figure. The victim babysat defendant's youngest child. In May 2006, defendant showed her a picture of his penis being inserted into a vagina. The next day, while she was playing video games with defendant's daughter in his bedroom, he touched her breasts. The day after that incident the victim was again babysitting at defendant's house when defendant sent his daughter into another room, unbuttoned the victim's pants, and told her to pull them down and get on his bed. She stood up and pulled down her pants, and when she bent over, defendant inserted his penis into her vagina from behind repeatedly until he ejaculated. She and defendant engaged in intercourse again in his bedroom the following day while she was babysitting his daughter. The victim claimed that she and defendant engaged in intercourse yet another time in defendant's bedroom and one time in his living room. The

[818 N.W.2d 300]

victim alleged that, about two weeks later, defendant asked her if she wanted to have sex, but she declined because she was menstruating. The victim claimed that defendant nevertheless instructed her to stand up and lift her skirt, and, when she complied, he inserted his penis into her vagina. The victim asserted that she worried that defendant might force her to have sexual intercourse in the future, so she told her mother that she had been having a sexual relationship with defendant.5

Before trial, the prosecution filed a motion to introduce evidence of other acts to establish a common plan or scheme, as permitted under MRE 404(b).6 In particular,[491 Mich. 458]the prosecution sought to have a witness, EW, testify that Watkins had also engaged in vaginal-penile penetration with her.7 Like the victim in the instant action, EW was a minor at the time, and she had a close relationship with Watkins's wife. The trial court granted the motion over Watkins's objection. The following is a summary of EW's testimony offered at defendant's first trial:

At the first trial, [EW] testified that defendant's wife is her first cousin and that she [EW] met defendant when she was 14 years old. [EW] loved defendant like a brother and often babysat for defendant's children. On one occasion when she was 15 years old, she visited defendant and his wife for the weekend and helped them with their infant. While alone with [EW], defendant commented on her sexual attractiveness, took her hand, and began leading her up the stairs to his bedroom on the second floor. [EW] was reluctant to go upstairs, so defendant pulled down her pants and inserted his penis into her vagina while they were still in the hallway. After eventually moving to defendant's bedroom, they continued having intercourse until defendant ejaculated. [EW] stated that the episode began a two-year sexual relationship, during which they had sexual encounters about 15 different times at defendant's home, her mother's home, and in empty houses where defendant was painting. [EW] explained that defendant included her in his family; they went to an amusement park together, went out to eat together, and watched movies together.[[8

Following the close of trial, the jury commenced deliberations but was unable to reach a verdict. Consequently, the trial court declared a mistrial.


[491 Mich. 459]At the opening of his second trial, Watkins moved for the trial court to reconsider its ruling on the other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b). This time, the trial court granted the motion. It reasoned that the other acts described by EW were too dissimilar from the charged acts to justify their use to show a common plan or scheme. The prosecution applied for leave to file an interlocutory appeal while the case proceeded to trial for the second time.

[818 N.W.2d 301]

The trial court declared a second mistrial when it learned that a juror had overheard a supervisor in the prosecutor's office comment about the court's exclusion of the other-acts evidence while riding in a courthouse elevator. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals peremptorily reversed the trial court's decision to exclude EW's testimony and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions for it to determine which aspects of EW's proposed testimony were admissible under MCL 768.27a as evidence of criminal sexual conduct against a minor. Subsequently, this Court vacated the Court of Appeals' order and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals with directions to consider whether MCL 768.27a conflicted with MRE 404(b) and, if so, whether the statute prevailed over the rule of evidence.9

In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals held that MCL 768.27a conflicted with MRE 404(b) and that the statute prevailed over the rule of evidence.10 Accordingly, it remanded the case to the trial court to determine under MCL 768.27a which aspects of EW's testimony related to the commission of a criminal sexual act against a minor.11 This Court granted leave to appeal,12[491 Mich. 460]but later vacated that order after determining that leave had been improvidently granted.13 Watkins preserved all his previous constitutional challenges as the case proceeded to trial for the third time.

At the third trial, the victim, then 15 years old, testified that she had known Watkins all her life, having lived next door to him and having occasionally baby-sat one of his children. She also stated that she was good friends with Watkins's wife, whom she considered her godmother. She considered Watkins her boyfriend. According to the victim, when she was 12 years old, Watkins approached her at a Memorial Day gathering and showed her sexually explicit images that were on his cell phone. She claimed that Watkins touched her breasts the next time she baby-sat and penetrated her vaginally the day after that. This conduct allegedly occurred consensually for the next couple of weeks. Sometime thereafter, when the victim arrived to baby-sit, she declined Watkins's request to engage in sexual activity because she was menstruating. She testified that Watkins's insistence disturbed her and she thought he might rape her. She told her mother what had happened. Although the victim did not want to get Watkins in trouble, she agreed to speak with the police.

The trial court allowed EW to testify regarding other-acts evidence under MCL 768.27a. According to EW, about 10 years earlier, when she was 15 years old, she had often baby-sat Watkins's oldest child. She testified that, during one visit, Watkins led her upstairs by the hand. He allegedly began kissing her, and their interactions culminated in sexual penetration. According to EW, their sexual relationship lasted a couple of years.

[491 Mich....

To continue reading

Request your trial
147 cases
  • State v. Perry
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 6 Mayo 2020
    ...the child victim and the adult accused, or because of the deviant and distasteful nature of the charges."); People v. Watkins , 491 Mich. 450, 818 N.W.2d 296, 310 (2012) ("Evidence of guilt in child molestation cases is typically hard to come by because in most cases the only witness is the......
  • People v. Sardy
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 29 Diciembre 2015
    ...(addressing admission of other sexual assaults against a minor, supplanting MRE 404(b) in that context). People v. Watkins, 491 Mich. 450, 455–456, 470, 818 N.W.2d 296 (2012). DerMartzex would also support admission of the evidence. Additionally, given the fleeting and somewhat vague refere......
  • People v. Bailey
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 2 Junio 2015
    ...limited to propensity as it also defined a plan or system in the commission of the various crimes. Second, under People v. Watkins, 491 Mich. 450, 486–490, 818 N.W.2d 296 (2012), propensity evidence admitted under MCL 768.27a is considered to have probative value and therefore to be relevan......
  • People v. Masroor, Docket Nos. 322280
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 24 Noviembre 2015
    ...in a balancing analysis. On the fourth day of the trial, the prosecutor directed the trial court's attention to People v. Watkins, 491 Mich. 450, 467, 818 N.W.2d 296 (2012), which, as we will discuss in greater detail, most assuredly requires the application of a “balancing test” for eviden......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT