Background
Defendant Kosta Lakovic was convicted by a jury of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II) involving a 15-year-old household member, KC. The charge stemmed from an August 2022 incident where Lakovic touched KC’s upper thigh and between her legs in a “squeezing” and “groping” manner while she was napping. Lakovic admitted to touching KC but denied “groping” her.
Before trial, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence of other inappropriate acts Lakovic allegedly committed against other young girls living in the household under MCL 768.27a, which allows propensity evidence in certain sex offenses against minors. The trial court permitted some of this evidence, but it required more specificity regarding “sexual comments” and “grooming behavior.”
On appeal, Lakovic challenged his conviction, arguing that his due process right to a fair trial was violated by the admission of the other-acts evidence and testimony about “grooming.” He also contended there was insufficient evidence to prove that his touching of KC was for a sexual purpose.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Lakovic’s conviction. The Court first addressed the other-acts evidence. It found that testimony concerning Lakovic touching another household member, TP, inappropriately during a game was properly admitted under MCL 768.27a because it constituted a “listed offense” (CSC-IV) against a minor, allowing for propensity evidence. This evidence was deemed highly probative and any prejudicial effect was mitigated by cross-examination and limiting instructions.
For the remaining other-acts evidence, such as sexual comments and asking girls to draw a penis, the Court found it was not admissible under MCL 768.27a because these acts did not qualify as “listed offenses.” However, the Court concluded this evidence was admissible under MRE 404(b) for non-propensity purposes, such as proving Lakovic’s motive, intent, scheme, plan, or system, as it showed a pattern of inappropriate behavior with young girls in the household. Although the trial court failed to conduct a MRE 404(b) analysis, this error was deemed harmless as the evidence was ultimately admissible.
The Court also agreed with Lakovic that the detective’s testimony defining “grooming” was improperly admitted because it was irrelevant to the charged offense and unfairly prejudicial. However, this error was also deemed harmless, as the reference was brief, not attributed to Lakovic by the prosecution, and Lakovic himself amplified the issue during trial. Finally, the Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, citing KC’s testimony and Lakovic’s admissions, which allowed the jury to reasonably infer a sexual purpose for his actions.
Key Takeaways
- In Michigan, other-acts evidence showing a defendant committed another “listed offense” against a minor is admissible for propensity purposes in criminal sexual conduct cases against minors (MCL 768.27a).
- Even if other-acts evidence does not qualify under MCL 768.27a, it may still be admissible under MRE 404(b) for non-propensity purposes like motive, intent, scheme, or plan.
- Trial court errors in admitting evidence can be deemed harmless if the evidence was otherwise admissible under a different rule or if the error did not affect the trial’s outcome.
- Irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial testimony, such as a general definition of “grooming” not tied to the charged conduct, should be excluded.
- A defendant’s actions that amplify improperly admitted evidence during trial can preclude a claim of error on appeal.
Why It Matters
This opinion provides important clarification on the application of Michigan’s evidentiary rules concerning other-acts evidence in cases of criminal sexual conduct against minors. It highlights the distinct pathways for admissibility under MCL 768.27a (for propensity of listed offenses) and MRE 404(b) (for non-propensity purposes), emphasizing that even when one pathway is inapplicable, another might still permit the evidence.
The ruling also underscores the appellate court’s use of harmless error review to uphold convictions, even when trial courts commit errors in evidentiary analysis. This decision serves as a reminder to both prosecutors and defense attorneys to carefully consider the specific legal basis for admitting or challenging other-acts evidence and to understand that a trial court’s procedural misstep may not always lead to reversal if the evidence was substantively admissible.