## Facts

- Lincoln Anderson Watkins was charged with sexually abusing a 12-year-old neighbor while she babysat his child.
- The prosecution offered testimony from E.W., a former babysitter, alleging Watkins sexually abused her when she was 14 in similar babysitting circumstances; the incidents were unreported and uncharged.
- The trial court admitted E.W.’s testimony under MCL 768.27a, and Watkins was convicted; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed.
- In a consolidated companion appeal (People v. Pullen), the prosecution sought to admit a 1989 police report alleging Pullen molested his daughter years earlier; the trial court excluded it under MRE 403 and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Michigan Supreme Court consolidated the cases to address the interaction between MCL 768.27a, MRE 404(b), and MRE 403.

## Issues

1. Whether MCL 768.27a irreconcilably conflicts with MRE 404(b) by permitting other-acts evidence to show propensity in prosecutions for listed sex offenses against minors.
2. If there is a conflict, whether MCL 768.27a unconstitutionally intrudes on the Michigan Supreme Court’s rulemaking authority under Const. 1963, art. 6, § 5.
3. Whether evidence admitted under MCL 768.27a remains subject to exclusion under MRE 403, and how the MRE 403 balance applies when propensity use is statutorily authorized.
4. Whether the challenged evidence was properly admitted in Watkins and properly excluded in the consolidated Pullen matter.

## Decision

- The court held MCL 768.27a irreconcilably conflicts with MRE 404(b) because the statute permits propensity use that the rule generally forbids.
- The court held the statute prevails over MRE 404(b) and does not impermissibly infringe the court’s constitutional authority over practice and procedure.
- The court held MRE 403 still applies to evidence admitted under MCL 768.27a.
- For MRE 403 balancing in this context, the court directed that the propensity inference is part of probative value, not an unfair-prejudice factor.
- The court affirmed Watkins’s convictions, concluding the trial court did not err in admitting E.W.’s testimony under MCL 768.27a and MRE 403.
- In the consolidated Pullen matter, the court vacated the lower-court judgments and remanded for reconsideration under the correct MCL 768.27a and MRE 403 framework.

## Legal Principles

- MCL 768.27a authorizes admission of other listed-offense evidence involving minors “for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant,” including propensity.
- When a statute and an evidentiary rule irreconcilably conflict, the statute may control if it does not impermissibly infringe the judiciary’s constitutional rulemaking authority.
- Other-acts evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a remains subject to MRE 403 exclusion if unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
- In applying MRE 403 to MCL 768.27a evidence, courts must treat the propensity inference as probative value; “unfair prejudice” must be grounded in other risks (e.g., confusion, misleading the jury, emotional inflaming) rather than the mere propensity character of the evidence.
- Trial courts must conduct a case-specific MRE 403 analysis rather than categorically admitting or excluding MCL 768.27a evidence.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court upheld a legislative exception permitting propensity-based other-acts evidence in child sex prosecutions, ruled that the statute supersedes MRE 404(b) without violating separation of powers, and required continued MRE 403 screening that counts propensity as probative rather than inherently unfairly prejudicial.


People v. Watkins, 491 Mich. 450, 818 N.W.2d 296 (Mich. 2012)