People of the State of Michigan v Lincoln Anderson Watkins
unpublished (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute allowing propensity evidence of prior sexual offenses against minors (MCL 768.27a) prevails over a conflicting court rule (MRE 404(b)) because the statute reflects a substantive public policy decision. However, such evidence remains subject to MRE 403's balancing test, where the propensity inference must be weighed as probative value, not as unfair prejudice.
Facts:
- In the first case, Lincoln Anderson Watkins was a neighbor and family friend of a 12-year-old girl who babysat his child.
- Watkins allegedly showed the girl sexually explicit images on his phone, touched her breasts, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions.
- The relationship ended when the girl told her mother after Watkins insisted on sexual activity while she was menstruating.
- Prosecutors sought to introduce testimony from another woman, EW, who alleged that when she was 15, Watkins began a similar multi-year sexual relationship with her after she babysat for him.
- In the second case, Richard Kenneth Pullen was accused by his granddaughter of touching her breasts and genital area multiple times, starting when she was five or six.
- Pullen's granddaughter also alleged that he knowingly masturbated where she could see him when she was 11 or 12 years old.
- Prosecutors sought to introduce a 20-year-old police report in which Pullen's daughter alleged he had sexually abused her, including digital penetration and indecent exposure.
Procedural Posture:
- In Watkins' case, the trial court initially admitted other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b) for a first trial that resulted in a hung jury.
- For the second trial, the court excluded the evidence, leading to another mistrial for unrelated reasons.
- The prosecution took an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals, which reversed, holding that a statute, MCL 768.27a, controlled.
- After a third trial where the evidence was admitted under the statute, a jury convicted Watkins.
- Watkins appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, holding the statute was a valid substantive rule of evidence.
- In Pullen's case, the prosecution gave notice of its intent to introduce other-acts evidence under MCL 768.27a.
- The trial court granted Pullen's motion to exclude the evidence, finding its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under MRE 403.
- The prosecution filed an interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude the evidence.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both cases and consolidated them.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Michigan statute MCL 768.27a, which allows evidence of a defendant's other sexual offenses against a minor to be considered for any relevant matter, prevail over the conflicting Michigan Rule of Evidence 404(b), which generally prohibits using such 'other acts' evidence to prove a defendant's character or propensity to commit the charged crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Zahra, J.
Yes, the statute (MCL 768.27a) prevails over the court rule (MRE 404(b)). The statute irreconcilably conflicts with the court rule by permitting the use of other-acts evidence to show a defendant's character and propensity, which the rule expressly forbids. Under the test from McDougall v Schanz, a statutory rule of evidence prevails over a court rule if it reflects a legislative policy 'over and beyond matters involving the orderly dispatch of judicial business.' MCL 768.27a is a substantive law, not a procedural rule, because it reflects important public policy considerations such as protecting children, prosecuting difficult cases, and addressing the high recidivism rates of sex offenders. However, this evidence remains subject to MRE 403, which allows exclusion if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Crucially, when applying this balancing test, the propensity inference itself must be weighed on the probative side of the scale, not the prejudicial side, otherwise the legislative intent of the statute would be defeated.
Dissenting - Marilyn Kelly, J.
No, the court rule (MRE 404(b)) should prevail because the statute is an unconstitutional legislative intrusion into the judiciary's exclusive power to regulate court practice and procedure. The statute's sole function is to alter the standard for admitting evidence in court, which is a quintessential procedural matter concerning the 'judicial dispatch of litigation.' While the legislature's policy goals may be laudable, the mechanism it chose—dictating evidentiary standards to the courts—violates the separation of powers under the Michigan Constitution. The McDougall test is fundamentally flawed and, even if applied correctly, does not support the majority's conclusion that this statute is substantive. The statute should be declared null and void.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the long-standing common law and evidentiary rule against propensity evidence, specifically for child sexual abuse cases in Michigan. It solidifies the legislature's power to enact substantive rules of evidence that override court-made rules, provided they are based on a clear public policy beyond mere court administration. By reframing the MRE 403 analysis to count the propensity inference as probative, the court makes it much more difficult for defendants to exclude prior-acts evidence, thus lowering the barrier for prosecutors in these types of cases. This framework will likely be applied to similar statutes and will influence the legislative-judicial balance in evidence law.
Unlock the full brief for People of the State of Michigan v Lincoln Anderson Watkins