Background
In July 2023, the 14-year-old victim, who has secondary autism, and his mother moved into the home of defendant Grant, a family friend, after their home caught fire. By late August, they moved to a camper on Grant’s property. Between late July and mid-August 2023, while the victim was often left in Grant’s care, the defendant sexually assaulted the victim on multiple occasions. Each assault involved three sexual contacts: forcing the victim to touch defendant’s genitals, touching the victim’s genitals with his own hand, and placing the victim’s genitals in his mouth.
In November 2023, the victim reported the assaults to school faculty, who notified authorities. The victim was interviewed by Detective Sergeant Nathan Edwards using forensic interview protocols. Grant was arrested and tried before a jury in Missaukee Circuit Court.
At trial, the prosecution introduced two categories of evidence defendant challenged on appeal: testimony from Grant’s former girlfriend about a 1999 sexual assault she claimed Grant committed against her, and Detective Edwards’s testimony regarding the victim’s statements to police. The jury convicted Grant of three counts of first-degree criminal sexual assault and six counts of second-degree criminal sexual assault (all involving a mentally disabled victim). Grant was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 300–480 months per CSC-I count and 120–180 months per CSC-II count.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed Grant’s convictions. On the prior acts evidence, the court acknowledged that testimony from Grant’s former girlfriend (DC) about a 1999 sexual assault should have been excluded under Michigan Rule of Evidence 403. The court found that although the testimony was logically relevant under MCL 768.27b(1)—because both DC and the victim alleged assault by someone with whom Grant shared a domestic relationship—the factual differences between the incidents (DC was an adult woman who shared a child with Grant; the victim was a teenage boy temporarily living on the property) meant the testimony had only “marginal probative value.” The emotional impact of DC’s testimony, which the trial court itself considered striking, created a substantial risk of unfair prejudice that outweighed this limited probative value.
However, the court found the error harmless because the victim’s direct testimony was strong and detailed. The victim described the repeated assaults in specifics, explaining how Grant would pull off his clothes, hold him down on a bed, and commit the three sexual acts during every assault. This properly admitted evidence provided strong and convincing proof sufficient for a jury to convict, making the improper admission of DC’s testimony not reversible error.
On Detective Edwards’s testimony, the court upheld its admission under MCL 768.27c(1). The victim’s November 2023 report, following assaults occurring in late July or mid-August, satisfied the “at or near the time” temporal requirement established in prior case law. The circumstances—including Detective Edwards’s use of forensic interview protocols—indicated the trustworthiness required by statute. The court rejected Grant’s argument that temporal proximity alone determines trustworthiness and found no abuse of discretion in admitting this evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Prior acts of sexual assault are admissible under MCL 768.27b in prosecutions for sexual assault, permitting juries to see the defendant’s full history, but trial courts must still apply MRE 403 to exclude evidence when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
- Evidence of a victim’s prior statements to law enforcement under MCL 768.27c(1) may be admitted if made “at or near” the time of injury, even months later, provided other statutory requirements are met and circumstances indicate trustworthiness.
- Erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence can be harmless when strong, properly admitted evidence of guilt independently supports the verdict.
- Forensic interview protocols used by law enforcement may factor into the trustworthiness analysis for victim statements under MCL 768.27c.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Michigan courts’ approach to balancing propensity evidence in sexual assault prosecutions against the risk of unfair prejudice. While MCL 768.27b broadly permits prior acts evidence to show propensity, trial courts retain discretion under MRE 403 to exclude evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect—and appellate courts will enforce this gate-keeping duty, even when harmless error doctrine ultimately affirms.
The opinion also clarifies that MCL 768.27c(1)(d)’s trustworthiness requirement is independent of the temporal-proximity requirement in subsection (1)(c). A victim’s delayed report still satisfies the statute if circumstances (such as the use of structured forensic interview techniques) indicate reliability. For prosecutors handling cases involving victims with developmental disabilities, the decision shows that proper investigative protocols strengthen admissibility of the victim’s hearsay statements.