1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FOR PUBLICATION 

January 15, 2015 

9:00 a.m. 

V No. 317206 

Kent Circuit Court 

CHRISTOPHER LEE JOHNSON, LC No. 12-009542-FH 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and BECKERING and SHAPIRO, JJ. 

SHAPIRO, J. 

 Defendant, Christopher Lee Johnson, was convicted by a jury of second-degree home 

invasion, MCL 750.110a(3), and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, 

to 8 to 25 years’ imprisonment. He appeals his conviction and sentence as of right. We affirm. 

I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 The home of Nicholas Simon and Serena Norris was broken into on April 18, 2012. The 

perpetrator gained access to the home by kicking in two different doors, as evidenced by the 

broken frames and a boot mark impression left on one of the doors. Among the items stolen 

from the home were a 52-inch, flat-screen television and several pieces of jewelry, including an 

heirloom ring with a cross on it and a class ring. Investigation eventually led police to Jackie 

Sturgis, who admitted to the home invasion and implicated defendant. 

 At trial, Sturgis testified that she helped defendant commit the home invasion. She stated 

that she drove defendant to the home and saw him go around the back. Through a window she 

viewed defendant inside the house and then witnessed him exit the home with various items, 

including a large television. She thereafter drove defendant to his brother’s home, where 

defendant lived, and helped defendant unload some of the stolen items into the garage. She then 

accompanied defendant to Grand Rapids, where defendant sold the television. She also, per 

defendant’s instructions, sold the ring with a cross on it and gave defendant the proceeds. 

 Chet Wood, who was incarcerated with defendant while awaiting trial, testified that he 

and defendant spoke about the charged home invasion. Wood testified at trial that he asked 

defendant “bottom line, did you do it?” Defendant responded “yeah, but I can’t tell them that.” 

Wood also recounted a discussion with defendant in which defendant told him that “between 

sellin’ heroin and breakin’ into houses, he was gettin’ about 600 bucks a day.” He also testified 
2 

that Defendant told him that he had female accomplices—including “some Jackie girl”—and that 

some of them were going to testify against him. 

 Another witness testified that on defendant’s request he pawned a class ring that was later 

determined to have come from the burglarized home and gave defendant the proceeds. 

 The prosecution also introduced testimony from Rory Bancroft who gave testimony 

regarding a separate burglary, linked to the defendant that bore characteristics similar to those of 

the charged offense. She testified that the person who broke into her home had gained access by 

breaking in the front door and that she had observed a large footprint on the door. At trial, the 

prosecution showed Bancroft several items found in defendant’s brother’s garage, which she 

identified as having been stolen in the break-in of her home. 

II. OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE 

 On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing Bancroft to testify and 

that evidence concerning the invasion of Bancroft’s home was inadmissible under both MRE 

404b(1) and MRE 404(b)(2). Defendant failed to preserve this evidentiary issue for appeal by 

raising it in the trial court. Thus, our review is for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial 

rights. People v Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439, 447; 628 NW2d 105 (2001), citing People v 

Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Defendant also claims that his trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to object to admission of this evidence. 

A. MRE 404(b)(1) 

 MRE 404(b)(1) sets out the substantive rule regarding admission of “other crimes, 

wrongs, or acts” of a person, including an accused. It provides: 

 Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the 

character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, 

however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, 

intent, preparation, scheme, plan, or system in doing an act, knowledge, identity, 

or absence of mistake or accident when the same is material, whether such other 

crimes, wrongs, or acts are contemporaneous with, or prior or subsequent to the 

conduct at issue in the case.

 As MRE 404(b)(1) makes clear, “Michigan’s Rules of Evidence proscribe the use of 

character evidence to prove action in conformity therewith.” People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 494; 

577 NW2d 673 (1998). Specifically, MRE 404(b)(1) prohibits the introduction of evidence of an 

individual’s “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” for such a purpose. However, evidence of other 

crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible under MRE 404(b) if (1) the evidence is offered for a 

proper purpose and not to prove the defendant’s character or propensity to commit the crime; (2) 

it is relevant to an issue or fact of consequence at trial; and (3) the probative value of the 

evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. People v 

VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 74-75; 508 NW2d 114 (1993). 

 Brancroft’s testimony was relevant to the identification of the perpetrator of the charged 

home invasion given that the burglary of her home, to which defendant was linked, was highly 
3 

similar to the charged crime in the way they were carried out and the location of the recovered 

stolen goods. “[E]vidence of similar misconduct is logically relevant to show that the charged 

act occurred where the uncharged misconduct and the charged offense are sufficiently similar to 

support an inference that they are manifestations of a common plan, scheme, or system.” People 

v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich 43, 63; 614 NW2d 888 (2000). In this case, both home 

invasions shared particularized common features. They were each accomplished by kicking in a 

door at an unoccupied home, leaving a large boot mark impression on the door, and, in each, 

some of the items stolen were stored at defendant’s brother’s home, where defendant was living. 

The substantial similarity in which these crimes were accomplished, and the similarity with 

respect to where the stolen items were thereafter taken were relevant to, and probative of, 

identity. See MRE 401; Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich at 66. 

 We agree that evidence that defendant committed another home invasion carried with it 

the potential that the jury would consider it as propensity evidence and rely upon that 

consideration in reaching a verdict. However, on the facts of this case, we do not find that such 

prejudice “substantially outweighed” its probative value. MRE 403. First, the probative value 

of the evidence as to identity was substantial given their signature characteristics. Second, the 

trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction directing it to consider the other acts evidence only 

for its permissible purpose. See MRE 105. Third, though probative of identity, the overall 

impact of this testimony was minor in the context of the other evidence of guilt which included 

defendant’s own admission of guilt and identification of his accomplice by name, as well as 

detailed testimony from that accomplice and others. 

 Accordingly, because the other acts evidence was offered for a proper purpose and its 

probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair 

prejudice, we conclude that its admission was not barred by MRE 404(b)(1). 

B. MRE 404(b)(2) 

 MRE 404(b)(2) governs the procedural requirements for admission of MRE 404(b)(1) 

evidence. It provides that such evidence may only be admitted where the prosecutor provides 

reasonable pretrial notice of such evidence or, if he fails to do so, if the trial court excuses such 

failure on good cause shown. The provision reads: 

 The prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in 

advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause 

shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial 

and the rationale, whether or not mentioned in subparagraph (b)(1), for admitting 

the evidence. If necessary to a determination of the admissibility of the evidence 

under this rule, the defendant shall be required to state the theory or theories of 

the defense, limited only by the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination. 

[Emphasis added.] 
4 

 A review of the record confirms that the prosecution failed to adhere to this notice 

provision. See Hawkins, 245 Mich App at 453. No written notice of the intent to introduce 

other acts evidence is contained in the record1

 and the prosecution has not referred us to any 

proceeding in which oral notice was provided. The record also makes clear that the prosecution 

did not seek an exception from this requirement on good cause shown. 

 We reject the prosecution’s argument that MRE 404(b)(2) should not be applied as 

written. The language of the rule is both unequivocal and mandatory given its use of the word 

“shall,” i.e., “the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of 

trial . . . of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial[.]” It is wellsettled that “use of the word ‘shall’ indicates that . . . [the directed action] is mandatory and 

imperative.” Scarsella v Pollak, 461 Mich 547, 549; 607 NW2d 711 (2000) (citations omitted). 

Our Supreme Court recently reemphasized this principle: 

Where a statute provides that a public officer “shall” do something within a 

specified period of time and that time period is provided to safeguard someone’s 

rights or the public interest, as does the statute here, it is mandatory, and the 

public officer is prohibited from proceeding as if he or she had complied with the 

statutory notice period. [In re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 496 Mich 320, 339; 852 

NW2d 747 (2014) (emphasis added).] 

 Given the statutory language, we must therefore conclude that the prosecution was 

“prohibited from proceeding” with introduction of the other acts evidence given its failure to 

provide the mandatory notice as required by MRE 404(b)(2) or otherwise show good cause 

during trial for failing to provide the requisite notice. Id. at 339. 

 Though the issue is settled by the plain text of the rule, we note that this conclusion is 

also supported by the Supreme Court’s analysis in VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, and its amendment 

of MRE 404(b)(2) following that decision, People v VanderVliet, 445 Mich 1205; 520 NW2d 

338 (1994). Prior to VanderVliet, introduction of other acts evidence against an accused was 

sharply limited by the rule in People v Golochowicz, 413 Mich 298; 319 NW2d 518 (1982), 

which interpreted MRE 404 as a rule of exclusion, not inclusion, as was later determined in 

VanderVliet. VanderVliet, 444 Mich at 64-65. 

VanderVliet directed trial court judges to render individual decisions concerning such 

evidence not in the abstract but with consideration of the “shifting mosaic of consequential facts” 

from case to case. Id. at 87. It also “caution[ed] the bench and bar that other acts evidence must 

move through a permissible intermediate inference, such as mens rea, lack of accident, or 

common plan or scheme, to be relevant to actus reus.” Id. “Absent such intermediate inference, 

the other acts evidence bears only on propensity and is inadmissible.” Id. 

 

1

 The only item in the record cited in the prosecution’s brief was its witness list which contained 

Bancroft’s name. However, it provided no information as to her identity or the nature of her 

testimony. 
5 

 Given the fact that other acts evidence is often both probative and prejudicial, the 

VanderVliet Court noted that the determination of admissibility of other acts evidence could be 

“extraordinarily difficult.” Id. at 89.2

 Accordingly, the Supreme Court opined that such 

decisions should not have to be rendered during “the inherent complexity . . . of the modern day 

trial[,]” id. at 87, and announced its intent to “require[] the prosecution to give pretrial notice of 

its intent to introduce other acts evidence at trial,” Id. at 89. It went on to state that, “[a] notice 

requirement prevents unfair surprise and offers the defense the opportunity to marshal arguments 

regarding both relevancy and unfair prejudice.” Id. at 89 n 51. 

 Not long after VanderVliet, that rule change was effectuated by adding the language of 

MRE 404(b)(2) and as noted in Hawkins, 245 Mich App at 454-455, the 

essential value and underlying aims of MRE 404(b)(2) are (1) to force the 

prosecutor to identify and seek admission only of prior bad acts evidence that 

passes the relevancy threshold, (2) to ensure that defendant has an opportunity to 

object to and defend against this sort of evidence, and (3) to facilitate a thoughtful 

ruling by the trial court that either admits or excludes this evidence and is 

grounded in an adequate record.[3

] 

 The prosecution argues that MRE 404(b)(2) does not mandate that notice be in writing. 

We agree as the plain text of the rule does not include such a requirement. However, we reject 

any suggestion that if there is a question whether oral notice was provided, the trial court must 

hold a hearing and determine whether such oral communication occurred and whether its content 

satisfied the notice requirement. Such a mechanism would be highly inefficient and 

unnecessarily place the court in the position of taking testimony from participating counsel as to 

their recollection of oral communications. It is far simpler, and more consistent with 

VanderVliet to require that the mandated notice be provided either in writing or orally in open 

court so that both parties and the trial judge, will know as a matter of record whether and what 

notice was in fact provided. Accordingly, we hold that where the record does not demonstrate 

compliance by the prosecution with the mandatory notice requirement of MRE 404(b)(2), upon 

objection by the defense, the trial court shall exclude such evidence absent a showing of “good 

cause” for the failure to provide such notice. 4 As such, the prosecution’s failure to give notice in 

accordance with MRE 404(b)(2) was plain error. Hawkins, 245 Mich App at 453 (“failure to give 

notice [of prior bad acts evidence] is plain error because the court rule unambiguously requires 

notice to the defense at some time before the prosecutor introduces [it].).” 

 

2

 In Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich at 57 n 5, the Supreme Court noted that even where notice 

is provided, “the trial court’s task is not an easy one.” 

3

 As Hawkins involved a bench trial, any error under MRE 404(b) presented a substantially lower 

risk of prejudice to the defendant than it would in a jury trial. 

4

 The prosecution has not argued that there was good cause for its failure to provide pre-trial 

notice. Moreover, any such determination must first be made by the trial court. 
6 

 Having concluded that there was plain error, we must consider whether, in the context of 

the other evidence, it requires reversal. Reversal is only warranted “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.” People v Pipes, 

475 Mich 267, 279; 715 NW2d 290 (2006) (quotation marks, citation, and formatting omitted). 

Based on that standard, we conclude that reversal is not warranted in this case. As discussed 

earlier, the jury heard detailed testimony from defendant’s accomplice that she personally saw 

defendant break down the door, enter the victim’s home several times, each time emerging from 

the home with several items (matching those the victims reported as stolen). She testified that 

she and defendant then drove to his brother’s garage where he stored several of the items, where 

they were later found. She also testified that she traveled with defendant to another location 

where he sold the stolen television. Another witness testified that during a conversation the 

defendant explicitly admitted his guilt. A third witness testified that defendant asked him to 

pawn a ring for him that was later identified as belonging to the victim. In response to this 

evidence, defendant offered no rebuttal. Given these proofs, we cannot say that 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.” Id. 

 In sum, we agree that admission of the other acts evidence was error. However, given the 

overwhelming and unrebutted affirmative evidence of defendant’s guilt, independent of the other 

acts evidence, we conclude that reversal is not warranted in this case. 

 Defendant also argues that by virtue of his counsel’s failure to object to the admission of 

the other acts evidence on notice grounds, he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. 

We agree that counsel’s failure to object fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and 

that there was no strategic reason for this failure. However, for the same reasons just discussed, 

we conclude that, but for counsel’s error, there is not a reasonable probability that the result of 

the trial would have been different. See People v Swain, 288 Mich App 609, 643; 794 NW2d 92 

(2010). 

III. SENTENCING 

 Defendant next raises a host of unpreserved sentencing issues, which we review for plain 

error affecting substantial rights. People v Loper, 299 Mich App 451, 456-457; 830 NW2d 836 

(2013). Defendant first argues that the trial court failed to articulate how it arrived at defendant’s 

sentence and why such a sentence was proportionate. We disagree. “A trial court must articulate 

its reason for imposing a sentence on the record at the time of sentencing.” People v Conley, 270 

Mich App 301, 312; 715 NW2d 377 (2006). “The articulation requirement is satisfied if the trial 

court expressly relies on the sentencing guidelines in imposing the sentence or if it is clear from 

the context of the remarks preceding the sentence that the trial court relied on the sentencing 

guidelines.” Id. at 313. Here, the trial court expressly indicated that it had reviewed defendant’s 

Presentence Investigation Report (PSIR) and that it was sentencing defendant within the 

guidelines. Thus, it satisfied the articulation requirement. Id. Moreover, the trial court was not 

required to articulate why the sentence was proportionate because it was within the guidelines 

range and was therefore presumptively proportionate. People v Powell, 278 Mich App 318, 323; 

750 NW2d 607 (2008); People v Nunez, 242 Mich App 610, 618; 619 NW2d 550 (2000). 
7 

 Defendant next argues that the trial court failed to consider various mitigating factors, 

such as his mental health and substance abuse histories, his family support, and his remorse. 

However, as defendant readily acknowledges, the trial court was not required to consider such 

mitigating factors when it sentenced him. People v Osby, 291 Mich App 412, 416; 804 NW2d 

903 (2011). In any event, defendant’s claim is belied by the record, which indicates that the trial 

court reviewed defendant’s PSIR and the information contained therein. Defendant also argues 

that based on his history of substance abuse, there is an inference that he suffers from a “serious 

mental disease” that warranted a downward departure, and that the trial court erred by failing to 

conduct an assessment of his rehabilitative potential. However, defendant cites no authority to 

support his argument that a downward departure is warranted based on such facts under 

Michigan’s sentencing guidelines. Moreover, there is no record support that defendant actually 

suffered from a mental illness and we reject defendant’s argument that such an illness should be 

inferred simply because defendant had a history of substance abuse. Finally, there is no 

requirement for a trial court to conduct a detailed assessment of defendant’s rehabilitative 

potential, despite defendant’s claim to the contrary. Defendant also argues that he was entitled to 

a downward departure for accepting responsibility for his crime. However, he cites no authority 

that a downward departure is required in such a case. Moreover, a review of the sentencing 

transcript demonstrates that the defendant did not accept responsibility for his crime. 

 Defendant next argues that his sentence was “excessive” under state and federal 

constitutional principles. We assume that defendant is arguing that his sentence constitutes cruel 

and/or unusual punishment under either US Const, Am VIII or Const 1963, art 1, § 16. 

However, defendant’s sentence was within the recommended minimum sentence range under the 

legislative guidelines, and therefore constitutes neither cruel nor unusual punishment. Powell, 

278 Mich App at 323; People v DiVietri, 206 Mich App 61, 63-64; 520 NW2d 643 (1994). 

 Defendant also summarily claims that the trial court relied upon incomplete and 

inaccurate information in sentencing him. However, defendant’s claim that the trial court relied 

upon incomplete information is anchored to his claims that the trial court should have considered 

various mitigating factors and fully assessed his rehabilitative potential, which as discussed 

above, lack merit. Moreover, with respect to defendant’s claim that the trial court relied upon 

inaccurate information, defendant does not identify what information the trial court relied upon 

that was allegedly inaccurate. Thus, these claims lack merit. 

 Finally, defendant summarily argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 

object to the imposition of his sentence. However, as none of defendant’s various arguments 

relating to the validity of his sentence have any merit, his trial counsel was not ineffective for 

failing to raise such claims. Snider, 239 Mich App at 425. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro 

/s/ Michael J. Kelly 

/s/ Jane M. Beckering