If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

April 25, 2024

v No. 361024

Washtenaw Circuit Court

TIJUAN DELANE JONES, LC No. 20-000255-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GADOLA, C.J., and BORRELLO and PATEL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of three counts of second-degree 

criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II), MCL 750.520c(1)(a) (sexual contact with a person who is under 

13 years of age). The trial court sentenced defendant as a third-offense habitual offender, 

MCL 769.11, to concurrent terms of 12 months in jail for each count. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of defendant’s sexual abuse of his 12-year-old daughter at her mother’s

home in Washtenaw County. After she disclosed the abuse, Children’s Protective Services (CPS) 

and law enforcement talked to the victim and her family, and defendant voluntarily submitted to a 

police interview. Defendant was charged with three counts of engaging in sexual contact with a 

person under the age of 13. The charging document indicated that defendant engaged in sexual 

contact with a person under the age of 13 at a residence1in Washtenaw County on three occasions 

between August 1, 2019 to March 1, 2020. 

The minor victim and the detective in charge of the case testified at the preliminary 

examination. Following the preliminary examination, the district court found that probable cause 

was presented to support the charges in the criminal complaint based on three specific instances 

 

1 The minor victim’s mother’s home address was included on the charging document as the 

location of each of the three incidents.
-2-

of criminal sexual conduct described by the minor victim, and the trial court summarized the 

victim’s testimony regarding each of the three incidents. Defendant was bound over to circuit 

court. The prosecution subsequently submitted an information charging defendant with three 

counts of CSC-II indicating that defendant engaged in sexual contact with a person under the age 

of 13 at a residence in Washtenaw County on three occasions between August 1, 2019 to March 

1, 2020. After defendant was bound over, he moved for a bill of particulars pursuant to MCR 

6.112(E) and MCL 767.44, requesting “exact dates, times, location, and details of each incident . 

. .” The trial court denied the request, concluding that the prosecution had given as much 

specificity as could be provided under the circumstances. 

A jury found defendant guilty on all counts. Following the verdict, defendant moved for 

judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), arguing that the jury was unaware of what action 

each count consisted of, several government witnesses committed perjury at trial, the prosecutor 

used other-acts evidence to discredit defendant without prior notice, and the evidence was 

insufficient to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court denied the motion. 

Defendant filed a motion for new trial alleging the same defects as his motion for JNOV. The 

court also denied that motion. The trial court sentenced defendant to 5 years’ probation with

incarceration for the first 12 months. As part of his sentence, the trial court ordered that defendant 

register pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act and comply with lifetime GPS-tether

monitoring.

2

 After sentencing, defendant filed a motion for new trial and for evidentiary hearing 

raising many of the claims that he raises in this appeal. The trial court denied defendant’s request 

for a new trial or evidentiary hearing. This appeal followed.3

II. BILL OF PARTICULARS

Defendant contends that the trial court’s denial of his request for a bill of particulars denied 

him the ability to adequately prepare a defense. We disagree.

We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision whether to order a bill of 

particulars. People v Southern, 306 Mich 324, 326; 10 NW2d 901 (1943). See also People v 

Jones, 75 Mich App 261, 269; 254 NW2d 863 (1977). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the 

trial court chooses an outcome falling outside the range of principled outcomes.” People v Buie, 

491 Mich 294, 320; 817 NW2d 33 (2012).

“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that a state’s method for 

charging a crime give a defendant fair notice of the charge against the defendant, to permit the 

 

2 The trial court later entered a judgment of resentence removing the lifetime GPS-tether 

monitoring requirement and crediting defendant for 365 days in jail.

3 Defendant moved to remand, raising the same issues he raised in his motion for new trial and 

evidentiary hearing and in his brief on appeal, except for his additional claim on appeal that the 

cumulative errors denied him a fair trial. This Court denied the motion. People v Jones, 

unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered October 5, 2023 (Docket No. 361024).
-3-

defendant to adequately prepare a defense.” People v Chapo, 283 Mich App 360, 364; 770 NW2d 

68 (2009). MCL 767.45(1) states that the information shall contain the following:

(a) The nature of the offense stated in language which will fairly apprise the 

accused and the court of the offense charged.

(b) The time of the offense as near as may be. No variance as to time shall 

be fatal unless time is of the essence of the offense.

(c) That the offense was committed in the county or within the jurisdiction 

of the court. No verdict shall be set aside or a new trial granted by reason of failure 

to prove that the offense was committed in the county or within the jurisdiction of 

the court unless the accused raises the issue before the case is submitted to the jury.

MCR 6.112(E) provides, “The court, on motion, may order the prosecutor to provide the 

defendant a bill of particulars describing the essential facts of the alleged offense.” Generally, a

preliminary examination removes any need for a bill of particulars because it informsthe defendant 

of the nature of the charges against him. People v Harbour, 76 Mich App 552, 557; 257 NW2d 

165 (1977); People v Jones, 75 Mich App 261, 270; 254 NW2d 863 (1977). “Time is not of the 

essence, nor is it a material element, in criminal sexual conduct cases involving a child victim.” 

People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 83; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). As this Court explained in People 

v Gaines, 306 Mich App 289, 298-299; 856 NW2d 222 (2014):

“[I]n People v Howell, 396 Mich 16, 27 n 13; 238 NW2d 148 (1976), the 

Supreme Court suggested that an imprecise time allegation would be acceptable for 

sexual offenses involving children, given their difficulty in recalling precise dates.”

People v Naugle, 152 Mich App 227, 234 n 1; 393 NW2d 592 (1986) (the child 

victim in Naugle was molested from age 8 to 13, a detective testified that children 

have difficulty remembering the exact dates of individual assaults, and this Court 

held “it is conceivable that specific dates would not stick out in her mind”) id. 

at 235.

For this reason, when the allegations are reasonably clear, time is not an essential element of the 

offense, the event occurred within the time for prosecution, the prosecutor made a good-faith effort 

to establish when the events occurred, and the court held a preliminary examination, the charging 

documents need not set forth specific dates and times. Gaines, 306 Mich App at 298-299. Further, 

“[p]rejudice is essential to any claim of inadequate notice.” Chapo, 283 Mich App at 364. 

In this case, the charging document indicated that defendant engaged in sexual contact with 

a person under the age of 13 at an identified residence in Washtenaw County on three occasions 

between August 1, 2019 to March 1, 2020. The prosecution made a good-faith effort to establish 

the dates of the offenses. The victim testified at the preliminary examination that she was 12 years 

old and that defendant was her father. She described a specific incident of defendant’s sexual 

contact with her in the summer of 2019 at her mother’s home. She also testified that between 

November 2019 and January 2020, defendant was angry because she said that she hated him and, 

after they argued, defendant told her to sleep on the living room sofa. The victim described 

defendant’s sexual contact with her on that occasion at her mother’s home. The victim described 
-4-

another incident involving defendant’s sexual contact with her in February 2020 at her mother’s 

home. In addition to the three specific incidents, the victim testified that defendant engaged in 

sexual contact with her approximately every two weeks from the summer of 2019 until February 

or March 2020. Although the minor victim did not give specific dates and times of the three 

incidents, she was able to provide approximate dates and give enough surrounding detail of the 

events for defendant to understand when and where the crimes were alleged to have occurred. The 

district court found that the minor victim’s testimony at the preliminary exam was credible as to 

the three specific instances she described and bound defendant over on three counts of CSC-II. 

Further, defendant has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the fact that the 

information did not provide greater specificity. The minor victim testified at the preliminary 

examination regarding the time frame during which the criminal sexual conduct occurred. At trial, 

defendant maintained that the victim fabricated her allegations of sexual abuse. Defendant 

testified that the victim was angry because he disciplined her, and he called witnesses who testified 

that the victim’s claims about defendant’s conduct changed over time and that she did not have a 

reputation for truthfulness. The record reflects that defendant was aware of the charges against 

him, and he was able to present a defense against the victim’s allegations. Accordingly, we find 

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s request for a bill of 

particulars.

III. SPECIFIC UNANIMITY INSTRUCTION

Defendant next claims that the trial court erred when it failed to give a specific unanimity 

instruction to the jury. We disagree.

As a threshold issue, defendant did not object to the trial court’s jury instruction regarding 

unanimity or request a specific jury instruction on unanimity. And during the jury’s deliberations, 

when the jury asked which conduct related to each of the three CSC-II charges, defendant declined 

to have the trial court give the jury any further instructions about matching specific conduct to 

each charge. In fact, defense counsel insisted that the trial court should not further instruct the jury 

that it must agree on the specific conduct that proved each count and instead asked the trial court 

to instruct the jurors that they must rely only on their memories and notes to determine whether 

the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence to find defendant guilty of the charges. Accordingly, 

this issue is not preserved for appellate review. See MCR 2.512(C); People v Czuprynski, 325 

Mich App 449, 466, 926 NW2d 282 (2018) (holding that a claim regarding jury instructions is 

preserved “by challenging [that] aspect of the jury instructions in the trial court.”). 

We review unpreserved claims of constitutional error for plain error affecting the 

defendant’s substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). 

“To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) error must have 

occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial 

rights.” Id. at 763. To satisfy the third element, the defendant must show that the error “affected 

the outcome of the lower court proceedings.” Id. “[O]nce a defendant satisfies these three 

requirements, an appellate court must exercise its discretion in deciding whether to reverse.” Id. 

“Reversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually 

innocent defendant or when an error seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation 

of judicial proceedings independent of the defendant’s innocence.” Id. at 763-764 (cleaned up).
-5-

“A criminal defendant has the right to have a properly instructed jury consider the evidence 

against him.” People v Mills, 450 Mich 61, 80; 537 NW2d 909 (1995). Further, the right to a trial 

by jury enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution,4 which applies to the 

states via the Fourteenth Amendment, “includes a requirement that the verdict should be 

unanimous.” Ramos v Louisiana, 590 US __, __; 140 S Ct 1390, 1396-1397; 206 L Ed 2d 583 

(2020). Similarly, “[c]riminal defendants are guaranteed a unanimous jury verdict under the state 

constitution.” People v Gadomski, 232 Mich App 24, 30; 592 NW2d 75 (1998), citing Const 1963, 

art 1, § 14. “In order to protect a defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict, it is the duty of the trial 

court to properly instruct the jury regarding the unanimity requirement.” People v Cooks, 446 

Mich 503, 511, 521 NW2d 275 (1994). While a general instruction on unanimity is often sufficient 

to fulfill this duty, “when the state offers evidence of multiple acts by a defendant, each of which 

would satisfy the actus reus element of a single charged offense, the trial court is required to 

instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree on the same specific act if the acts are materially 

distinct or if there is reason to believe the jurors may be confused or disagree about the factual 

basis of the defendant’s guilt.” Id. at 512. “The critical inquiry is whether either party has 

presented evidence that materially distinguishes any of the alleged multiple acts from the others.” 

Id. “[W]hen a statute lists alternative means of committing an offense which in and of themselves 

do not constitute separate and distinct offenses, jury unanimity is not required with regard to the 

alternate theory.” People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich App 58, 68; 850 NW2d 612 (2014) (cleaned up).

In this case, defendant was charged with three separate counts of CSC-II. Although there 

are statutory variations of CSC-II, the jury was instructed that the prosecution had to prove each 

of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant intentionally touched [the victim]’s genital area, 

inner thigh, buttock, or breast or the clothing covering that area or made [the victim] 

touch his genital area or groin or the clothing covering that area.

Second, that this was done for sexual purposes or could reasonably be 

construed as having been done for sexual purposes. 

Third, that [the victim] was less than 13 years old at the time of the alleged 

act.

The jury was further instructed that it must consider each of the three counts of CSC-II separately

and it could “find the defendant guilty of all or any combination of these crimes or not guilty.” 

The jury was further instructed, “A verdict in a criminal case must be unanimous. In order to 

return a verdict, it is necessary that each of you agrees on that verdict.”

The prosecution did not allege multiple, materially distinct acts to prove defendant 

committed each CSC-II offense. For each of the three offenses, the prosecution presented 

testimony and evidence establishing that defendant had sexual contact with his daughter who was 

less that 13 years old at the time of each offense. The defense was also the same for all three 

offenses: defendant maintained that the victim fabricated her allegations of sexual abuse. 

 

4 US Const, Am VI.
-6-

Defendant testified that the victim was angry because he disciplined her, and he called witnesses 

who testified that the victim’s claims about defendant’s conduct changed over time and that she 

did not have a reputation for truthfulness. On these facts, defendant has failed to show that the 

absence of a specific unanimity instruction constituted plain error. See Carines, 460 Mich at 763.

Defendant alternatively argues that the failure of his trial counsel to either request a specific 

unanimity instruction or object to the jury instructions constituted ineffective assistance, 

necessitating a new trial. We disagree.

The United States and Michigan Constitutions afford criminal defendants the right to 

effective assistance of counsel. People v Yeager, 511 Mich 478, 488; __ NW2d __ (2023), citing 

Const 1963, art 1, § 20; US Const Am VI; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; 104 S Ct 2052; 

80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). An ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim presents a “mixed question of 

fact and constitutional law.” Yeager, 511 Mich at 487. Constitutional questions are reviewed de 

novo, while the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Id. 

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, “a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s 

performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but for counsel’s deficient 

performance, there is a reasonable probability that [the] outcome would have been different.” 

Yeager, 511 Mich at 488 (cleaned up). “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to 

undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. (cleaned up). Defense counsel should be “strongly 

presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise 

of reasonable professional judgment.” Strickland, 466 US at 688, 690; see also People v Vaughn, 

491 Mich 642, 670; 821 NW2d 288 (2012). We will not find trial counsel to be ineffective where 

an objection would have been meritless or futile, Head, 323 Mich App at 539, nor will we secondguess matters of trial strategy or “assess counsel’s competence with the benefit of hindsight.”

People v Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App 210, 237; 966 NW2d 437 (2020) (cleaned up).

Because a special unanimity jury instruction was not required, a request for that instruction, 

or an objection to the general unanimity instruction given would have been futile. Defense counsel 

was not ineffective for failing to advocate for a meritless position. See Head, 323 Mich App at 

539. 

IV. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

Defendant raises several unpreserved claims of prosecutorial misconduct, including that 

the prosecutor knowingly presented false evidence and used evidence of defendant’s and his 

partner’s poverty to encourage the jury to find defendant guilty. 

Because the challenged conduct was not preserved by contemporaneous objections and 

requests for curative instructions, People v Evans, 335 Mich App 76, 88; 966NW2d 402 (2020), 

our review is for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 763-

764.

A prosecutor may not knowingly use false evidence to obtain a conviction and may not 

allow false testimony to go uncorrected. People v Smith, 498 Mich 466, 475-476; 870 NW2d 299 

(2015). We review prosecutorial misconduct issues on a case-by-case basis. People v Mullins, 

322 Mich App 151, 172; 911 NW2d 201 (2017). We review “the prosecutor’s remarks in context 
-7-

to determine whether the defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.” Id. (cleaned up). “The 

prosecutor’s statements are to be evaluated in light of defense arguments and the relationship the 

comments bear to the evidence admitted at trial.” Id. (cleaned up). “Generally, prosecutors are 

given great latitude regarding their arguments and are free to argue the evidence and all reasonable 

inferences from the evidence as they relate to their theory of the case.” Id. (cleaned up). In making 

those arguments, “[t]he prosecutor need not speak in the blandest of all possible terms.” People v 

Blevins, 314 Mich App 339, 355; 886 NW2d 456 (2016) (cleaned up). “Further, [this Court]

cannot find error requiring reversal where a curative instruction could have alleviated any 

prejudicial effect.” People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 329-330; 662 NW2d 501 (2003). 

Curative instructions are sufficient to cure the prejudicial effect of most inappropriate prosecutorial 

statements, and jurors are presumed to follow their instructions. People v Unger, 278 Mich App 

210, 235; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).

Defendant argues that the prosecutor presented the testimony of CPS worker, Stacie Kinel, 

about her interview with the victim even though the prosecutor knew that Kinel’s testimony was 

untruthful. During her direct examination, Kinel testified that she followed correct protocols when 

she interviewed the victim. On cross examination, defense counsel used video footage of Kinel’s 

interview with the victim to rebut various assertions that Kinel made during her direct examination. 

The record reflects that certain protocols that Kinel should have followed were not on the video 

recording and that Kinel also put some incorrect information in her report about what she said to 

the victim and what the victim told her about things like her favorite food, her chores, and whether 

she had enough to eat at home or otherwise felt unsafe. But it also appears that Kinel attempted, 

to the best of her ability, to follow correct interviewing protocols and that she largely did so when 

she talked to the victim about her allegations of defendant’s sexual abuse. The testimony also 

established that the interview took Kinel off-guard because she did not plan to interview the victim, 

she was inexperienced and untrained at interviewing child sexual-abuse victims, and she also 

repeatedly said that the victim would be properly interviewed by someone qualified to do so at the 

Child Advocacy Center (CAC). This did not occur because, although Kinel did not know it at the 

time, the CAC was closed because of mandatory COVID-19 protocols, and the prosecutor 

ultimately decided that another interview was unnecessary. Under the circumstances, we cannot 

conclude that any false testimony went uncorrected or that there was a reasonable likelihood that 

the jury relied on false evidence during its deliberations. See People v Smith, 498 Mich 466, 475-

476; 870 NW2d 299 (2015). 

Defendant also contends that the prosecutor made impermissible references to defendant’s 

financial status to discredit his defense. Generally, our courts view prosecutorial references to a 

person’s financial problems as irrelevant to establish motive as well as improper and unfairly 

prejudicial. People v Henderson, 408 Mich 56, 66; 289 NW2d 376 (1980). Further, a prosecutor 

may not comment on a defendant’s poverty to attack that defendant’s credibility. People v 

Johnson, 393 Mich 488, 498; 227 NW2d 523 (1975). But we must review the prosecutor’s remarks 

in context. Mullins, 322 Mich App at 172. 

During his trial testimony, defendant stated that his job was to work and take care of his 

family and that he gave what he earned at his job to his partner, the victim’s mother, for her to use 

in raising their children. During cross-examination, defendant testified that he sometimes lived at 

a house in Detroit, sometimes at his own apartment in Ypsilanti, and sometimes with the victim’s 

mother and their children in Ann Arbor. Defendant admitted, however, that he was not on the 
-8-

lease for the victim’s mother’s apartment and that he did not consider her apartment his home. 

The prosecutor stated that she did not understand why defendant did not live with his partner and 

children if he considered himself a family man who supported his partner and children. Defendant 

admitted that he could not be on the victim’s mother’s lease because she was receiving public 

assistance. The prosecutor did not suggest that defendant committed the sexual assaults because 

his family was poor, nor did she suggest that defendant was more likely to be dishonest because 

he was poor. Rather, the prosecutor highlighted defendant’s inconsistent statements that he was a 

family man and involved father, but his family was living in low-income housing and he lived 

separately. The prosecutor is free to argue reasonable inferences arising from the evidence. 

Mullins, 322 Mich App 172. In context of the record as a whole, we find that the prosecutor’s 

remarks did not deprive defendant of his right to a fair trial.

Moreover, the trial court instructed the jury:

The lawyers’ statements and arguments are not evidence. They are only 

meant to help you understand the evidence and each side’s legal theories. You 

should only accept things the lawyers say that are supported by the evidence or by 

your own common sense and general knowledge. 

The lawyers’ questions to the witnesses and my questions to the witnesses 

are also not evidence. You should consider these questions only as they give 

meaning to the witnesses’ answers.

“Jurors are presumed to follow the court’s instructions, and instructions are presumed to cure most 

errors.” Mullins, 322 Mich App at 173.

Defendant also takes issue with the following remarks that the prosecutor made during her 

closing argument:

I didn’t call the mom as a witness. I didn’t call [the victim’s mother] as a 

witness. I don’t know what the relationship is, the setup, this we’re living in this 

home where—as a family unit but he’s not here, and so that’s her money source. 

She has nine kids and he’s her financial money source. So to call her in and testify 

against him, she loses all the financial resources for her family.

The prosecutor did not state that the victim’s mother would lie because of financial need but that 

calling her as a witness would have put her in a difficult position because it would put her financial 

resources from defendant in jeopardy. This argument was not an impermissible reference to the 

victim’s mother’s poverty or that her poverty would cause her to lie. The prosecutor is free to 

argue reasonable inferences arising from the evidence. Mullins, 322 Mich App 172. Given 

defendant’s testimony, the inference that he could have an undue influence on the victim’s mother

was logical. In context of the record as a whole, we find that the prosecutor’s remarks did not 

deprive defendant of his right to a fair trial.

Defendant alternatively argues that the failure of his trial counsel to object to the 

prosecutor’s remarks constituted ineffective assistance, necessitating a new trial. We disagree. 

Because the prosecutor’s remarks were not improper, objections to the remarks would have been 
-9-

futile. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to advocate for a meritless position. See 

Head, 323 Mich App at 539. 

V. OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE

Defendant further argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence 

that he possessed a gun because it was irrelevant and constituted inadmissible propensity evidence. 

We disagree.

“When the issue is preserved, we review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence for an 

abuse of discretion, but review de novo preliminary questions of law, such as whether a rule of 

evidence precludes admissibility.” People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich App 58, 62; 850 NW2d 612 

(2014). “The decision to admit evidence is within the trial court’s discretion and will not be 

disturbed unless that decision falls outside the range of principled outcomes. A decision on a close 

evidentiary question ordinarily cannot be an abuse of discretion.” People v Thorpe, 504 Mich 230, 

251-252, 934 NW2d 693 (2019) (cleaned up).

During cross-examination, defendant testified that he never lied during his interview with 

the detective in charge. The prosecutor asked defendant whether the detective asked about a 

weapon that she saw him holding in a video, and defense counsel objected. Defendant testified 

that he did not remember what he said to the detective about holding a weapon. The prosecutor 

refreshed defendant’s recollection by showing defendant, only, a Facebook video of him holding 

the weapon. Defendant continued to claim that he never told the detective that the gun was a toy. 

The prosecutor recalled the detective as a rebuttal witness, and asked her if defendant had lied that 

the gun was a toy. She testified that he had.

At trial, relevant evidence is generally admissible and irrelevant evidence is generally 

inadmissible. MRE 402. The credibility of witnesses is always relevant. People v Spaulding, 332 

Mich App 638, 660; 957 NW2d 843 (2020). As our Supreme Court has observed, “[i]n most 

criminal sexual conduct cases there are no nonparticipant witnesses to the crime, which reduces 

the cases to weighing the defendant’s credibility against that of the victim[ ].” People v Beckley, 

434 Mich 691, 717; 456 NW2d 391 (1990). This case is a credibility contest. Defendant 

maintained that he never lied to the police during the investigation. And his defense strategy was 

to convince the jury that the victim fabricated her allegations of sexual abuse. The trial court did 

not abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecutor to ask defendant about his answer to the 

detective regarding the gun. Because this evidence assisted the jury in determining defendant’s 

credibility, the evidence was relevant. 

Defendant argues that the evidence, if relevant, was otherwise inadmissible because it 

constituted propensity evidence. MRE 404(b) bars the admission of other-acts evidence for the 

purpose of showing a defendant’s propensity to commit similar acts. The record reflects that the 

prosecutor used the evidence to rebut defendant’s assertion that he was always truthful during his 

police interviews. Because the prosecutor did not present defendant’s possession of a weapon as 

a crime or wrong for purposes of MRE 404(b), and did not present it to show defendant’s character, 

MRE 404(b) does not apply.
-10-

The evidence was also not unfairly prejudicial to defendant. MRE 403 provides that 

relevant “evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger 

of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue 

delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” “All evidence offered by 

the parties is ‘prejudicial’ to some extent, but the fear of prejudice does not generally render the 

evidence inadmissible.” People v Mills, 450 Mich 61, 75; 537 NW2d 909 (1995). “[E]vidence is 

unfairly prejudicial when there exists a danger that marginally probative evidence might be given 

undue weight by the jury.” People v Dixon-Bey, 321 Mich App 490, 513; 909 NW2d 458 (2017). 

The probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair 

prejudice, nor is there any evidence that the jury was confused or unduly influenced by this line of 

questioning.

Defendant further argues that the detective’s rebuttal testimony related to a collateral issue 

and that defendant’s possession of a gun in a Facebook video was not relevant to establish any fact 

in issue or to show whether he sexually assaulted the victim and thus was inadmissible under MRE 

608(b).

5

 In general, “a witness may not be contradicted regarding collateral, irrelevant, or 

immaterial matters.” People v Vasher, 449 Mich 494, 504; 537 NW2d 168 (1995); see MRE 

608(b). But a party may introduce rebuttal evidence to contradict the answers elicited from a 

witness on cross-examination regarding matters germane to the issue if the rebuttal evidence is 

narrowly focused on refuting the witness’s statements. Id. The detective’s rebuttal testimony fits 

into this narrow exception and thus was admissible. 

Defendant alternatively argues that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel 

because, although defense counsel objected to the prosecutor’s cross-examination about the gun, 

she should have objected to the detective’s rebuttal testimony because it constituted extrinsic 

evidence on a collateral issue. Because the detective’s rebuttal testimony was proper impeachment 

evidence, an objection would have been futile. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to 

advocate for a meritless position. See Head, 323 Mich App at 539. 

Because we conclude that defendant has failed to establish that any error occurred, we find 

no merit to his claim that the cumulative effect of errors denied him a fair trial. See People v 

Mayhew, 236 Mich App 112, 128; 600 NW2d 370 (1999).

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael F. Gadola

/s/ Stephen L. Borrello 

/s/ Sima G. Patel 

 

5 Because defendant did not object to the detective’s rebuttal testimony, our review is for plain 

error affecting defendant’s substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 763-764.