Opinion ID: 2211561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scheme, Plan, or System

Text: As explained, the proper purpose articulated by the prosecutor must be relevant to a fact in issue. The majority properly analyzes this requirement in its discussion of the prior bad acts to show defendant's motive, intent, absence of mistake, and bolstering the victim's credibility. However, its analysis of scheme, plan, or system is lacking this requirement. The majority explains that the proper purpose must be relevant, or material: Materiality, however does not mean that the evidence must be directed at an element of a crime or an applicable defense. A material fact is one that is `in issue' in the sense that it is within the range of litigated matters in controversy. [Op., p. 896 (citations omitted).] In finding that defendant's scheme, plan, or system was material, the majority relies on an interesting interpretation of the Engelman dicta. Op., p. 899. It is true that other acts evidence is not limited to proving identity or intent. We need not look to Engelman to support this statement when 404(b) itself provides a nonexhaustive list of the proper purposes for admitting evidence. However, the propositions surrounding the Engelman quote are simply inaccurate. The majority provides that We [this Court] held that evidence of other instances of sexual misconduct that establish a scheme, plan, or system may be material in the sense that the evidence proves that the charged act was committed. Op., pp. 898-899. To the contrary, in Engelman we held that photographic evidence of the defendant standing nude next to a minor female was inadmissible to show that defendant had a scheme, plan, or system of luring children into his home for sex acts even though defendant had taken nude photos of the victim in that case. 434 Mich. at 221, 453 N.W.2d 656. The holding was based on a lack of a true plan. Id. The instant majority provides that Engelman suggested that a true plan required that defendant formed a plan including the charged and uncharged crimes as stages in the plan's execution. Op., p. 899. In fact, Engelman held that because a true plan was not shown, as defined by Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence, § 3:21, p. 53, and 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (14th ed.), § 186, pp. 786-787, the evidence was inadmissible. 434 Mich. at 221, 453 N.W.2d 656. Finding no support in our case law, [20] the majority looks to other jurisdictions to add a new theory of logical relevance that will fit within the category of scheme, plan, or system. It relies on State v. Lough, 125 Wash.2d 847, 889 P.2d 487 (1995), and People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 867 P.2d 757 (1994). However, the theory derived from those cases does not clarify our case law, but instead rejects it. Lough simply followed the Ewoldt analysis and its precedent. The Ewoldt rule provides that other acts evidence is relevant to prove that the charged act was committed if it is sufficiently similar to support the inference of a common design or plan. 7 Cal.4th at 402, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 867 P.2d 757. This view was rejected in Engelman, where this Court explained that when the ultimate fact to be proved through the other acts evidence is that the criminal act took place, the question becomes whether the evidence offered tends to establish some intermediate inference, other than the improper inference, which is probative of the ultimate issue in the casethe commission of the act. 434 Mich. at 217, 453 N.W.2d 656. In other words, there must be a proper intermediate inference established by the other acts evidence that is probative of whether the crime occurred. Id. at 218, 453 N.W.2d 656. The majority has provided no intermediate inference. [21] Instead, it adopts the rule that the prosecutor need only show similarities in the charged and uncharged crimes. These similarities prove only that defendant acted in conformity with his character to commit similar acts. This analysis allows the prosecution to skip the intermediate inference requirement and instead point to one or two similarities as proof that the second act must have occurred. In other words, the prosecutor may now work backwards and argue that, where there are similarities, there is a plan, and therefore the other acts evidence proves defendant committed the instant crime. This logic has never been adopted, and it appears this leap is now made simply to convict a reprehensible defendant. The proper rule would follow well-established principles of evidence that require a showing that the other acts evidence is being presented to show something other than propensity to commit the crime. Crawford, supra at 390, 582 N.W.2d 785.