The defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree
criminal sexual conduct and was sentenced to prison for 37 to 80 years. Among other things, the defendant argued on
appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecution
to introduce evidence of a prior sexual assault. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished
opinion. The Supreme Court has
ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1)
whether the other-acts evidence offered to show a common plan, scheme, or
system contained a “striking similarity” to the charged act as required
by People v Denson,
500 Mich 385, 403 (2017); (2) whether the other-acts evidence was admissible
under the “doctrine of chances,” see People
v Mardlin, 487 Mich 609, 616-617 (2010); and (3) if the
evidence was not offered for a proper purpose, whether its admission was
harmless.