COA 371830 PEOPLE OF MI V JEREL LYNN GRANT Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 7/7/2026

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UNPUBLISHED
July 07, 2026
1:27 PM
v No. 371830
Missaukee Circuit Court
JEREL LYNN GRANT, LC No. 2023-003463-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CAMERON, P.J., and BOONSTRA and SWARTZLE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his jury-trial convictions of three counts of first-degree criminal sexual
assault (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b(1)(h) (mentally disabled victim), and six counts of second-degree
criminal sexual assault (CSC-II), MCL 750.520c(1)(h) (mentally disabled victim). We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In late July 2023, the victim, then 14 years old, and his mother moved in with defendant, a
family friend, and his girlfriend after their home caught fire. The victim and his mother initially
lived in defendant’s residence but moved into their own camper parked on defendant’s property
sometime in late August or early September 2023. The victim, who has “secondary autism due to
illness or injury while in the womb[,]” required supervision, so his mother and defendant’s
girlfriend did their best to coordinate their work schedules in a way that ensured that one of them
would be able to watch the victim at any given time. In November 2023, the victim reported to
school faculty that defendant had sexually assaulted him. The school notified the authorities, and
Missaukee County Sheriff’s Office Detective Sergeant Nathan Edwards went to the school and
interviewed the victim. Defendant was later interviewed and arrested.
Before trial, the prosecution filed notice of its intent to introduce evidence under
MCL 768.27b of two prior sexual assaults defendant had committed. The trial court ultimately
denied the prosecution’s motion as to one prior act, but permitted the other, allowing defendant’s
former girlfriend, DC, to testify at trial about defendant sexually assaulting her in 1999. The
prosecution also sought to have Detective Edwards testify regarding what the victim told him
under MCL 768.27c, which the trial court allowed after the prosecution laid a foundation about

-- 1 of 7 --

-2-
how Detective Edwards’s use of forensic interview protocols demonstrated the trustworthiness of
the victim’s statements.
The victim testified at trial about three separate assaults that occurred between when he
moved in with defendant and when he returned to school. The victim testified that defendant
forced the victim to touch defendant’s penis, touched the victim’s penis with his own hand, and
put the victim’s penis in his mouth. Each incident at issue involved the same three sexual contacts.
The victim acknowledged while testifying that he sometimes got confused, and there were
inconsistencies in his testimony.
Detective Edwards testified about what the victim told him regarding the assaults, which
pointed out some inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony as well as filled in some gaps.
DC testified that, in 1999, defendant sexually assaulted her in his home when she came to
pick up the child that they shared. After DC’s testimony concluded, the trial court expressed
concern that the emotional nature of her testimony may have introduced unfair prejudice into the
trial. It considered striking her testimony but ultimately decided not to. The jury found defendant
guilty of all nine counts and defendant was sentenced, as a fourth-offense habitual offender,
MCL 769.12, to 300 to 480 months’ imprisonment for each of the CSC-I counts and 120 to 180
months’ imprisonment for each of the CSC-II counts. Defendant now appeals.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
“A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion.” People v Thorpe, 504 Mich 230, 251; 934 NW2d 693 (2019). “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.” Id. at 251-252 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
“A decision on a close evidentiary question ordinarily cannot be an abuse of discretion.” Id. at
252. “When the decision to admit or exclude evidence involves a preliminary question of law,
such as whether the evidence falls within the ambit of a statute, the question is reviewed de novo.”
People v Berklund, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 367568); slip op
at 3-4.
III. PRIOR ACTS UNDER MCL 768.27B
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of defendant’s prior
sexual assault against DC. Although we agree the trial court erred by admitting DC’s testimony,
the error was harmless and does not warrant reversal.
DC’s testimony was admitted under MCL 768.27b(1), which generally permits the
admission of other acts of domestic violence or sexual assault if the evidence is relevant and not
otherwise excluded by MRE 403:
(1) Except as provided in subsection (4), in a criminal action in which the
defendant is accused of an offense involving domestic violence, sexual assault, or
a violation of chapter LXVII or chapter LXVIIA of the Michigan penal code, 1931
PA 328, MCL 750.448 to 750.462 and 750.462a to 750.462h, evidence of the
defendant’s commission of other acts of domestic violence, sexual assault, or acts

-- 2 of 7 --

-3-
constituting violations of chapter LXVII or chapter LXVIIA of the Michigan penal
code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.448 to 750.462 and 750.462a to 750.462h, is
admissible for any purpose for which it is relevant, if it is not otherwise excluded
under Michigan rule of evidence 403.
“When construing a statute, the primary objective is ascertaining and giving effect to the
Legislature’s intent.” Berklund, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 4. “This inquiry begins with the
text of the statute itself.” Id. “If a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, no further judicial
construction is required or permitted, because the Legislature is presumed to have intended the
meaning it plainly expressed.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). As explained in
Berklund, the plain language of MCL 768.27a(1) imposes “three express limitations on the
introduction of prior acts of domestic violence or sexual assault in current prosecutions for offenses
involving domestic violence or sexual assault.” Berklund, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 4. It
explained:
First, the introduction of such evidence is limited by subsection (4), which
precludes the admission of “[e]vidence of an act occurring more than 10 years
before the charged offense” unless certain listed exceptions apply.
MCL 768.27b(4). Second, the introduction of such evidence is barred where the
evidence is “excluded under Michigan rule of evidence 403.” MCL 768.27b(1).
Otherwise, the evidence is “admissible for any purpose for which it is relevant.”
MCL 768.27b(1). This makes relevancy, as defined in MRE 401 and MRE 402,
the third express limitation in MCL 768.27b(1) on the admission of prior acts of
domestic violence or sexual assault in current prosecutions for offenses involving
domestic violence or sexual assault. [Id.]
It is undisputed that the first limitation is satisfied. Although the 1999 incident occurred
more than 10 years before the charged offenses in this case, DC’s testimony was admissible
because she reported the assault to law enforcement within 5 years of the offense.
MCL 768.27b(4)(a).
In terms of relevance, “[e]vidence is logically relevant if it is material and probative.”
Berklund, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 7; see also MRE 401. “Evidence is material if it is
related to a fact that is of consequence to the action.” Berklund, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at
7. “Evidence is probative if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
“[P]ropensity evidence is logically relevant” because “[a] person who has
committed an offense may be more likely to commit that or another offense than a
person who has not committed that or any other offense.” MRE 404(b) generally
excludes the admission of propensity evidence—the rule prohibits evidence of a
defendant’s other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove the defendant’s propensity to
commit such acts. The reason for this general prohibition on propensity evidence
is not because such evidence is irrelevant but because “propensity evidence might
weigh too much with the jury and . . . so overpersuade them as to prejudge one with

-- 3 of 7 --

-4-
a bad general record and deny him a fair opportunity to defend against a particular
charge.”
MCL 768.27b is an exception to this general bar on propensity evidence; in
prosecutions for offenses involving domestic violence or sexual assault,
MCL 768.27b permits evidence of a defendant’s prior commission of domestic
violence or sexual assault to show the defendant’s character or propensity to
commit such acts. This reflects a legislative determination that juries should have
“a full and complete picture of a defendant’s history” when the defendant is accused
of domestic violence or sexual assault because that history “tend[s] to shed light on
the likelihood that a given crime was committed.” [Id. at ___; slip op at 7-8
(citations omitted).]
We disagree with defendant’s argument that DC’s testimony was irrelevant, and should
have been excluded, because the circumstances of her assault differed from this case. Defendant
overlooks a key similarity that is relevant to show propensity under MCL 768.27b. Both DC and
the victim alleged that defendant had sexually assaulted a person with whom he had a domestic
relationship, whether through a romantic relationship or by living arrangement.1 This similarity
supports a logical inference that defendant may have a propensity to sexually assault people with
whom he shares a domestic relationship. Although we agree that the factual circumstances
between the two cases differed in other respects, those differences go to the weight of the evidence,
not its logical relevance. Accordingly, DC’s testimony was logically relevant.
Defendant next argues that DC’s testimony was inadmissible under MRE 403, and, by
extension, MCL 768.27b(1). A trial court “may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing
the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.” MRE 403. “Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it has a tendency to adversely affect the
objecting party’s position by injecting considerations extraneous to the merits of the lawsuit, e.g.,
the jury’s bias, sympathy, anger, or shock.” Berklund, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 9 (quotation
marks and citation omitted).
“[W]hen applying MRE 403 to evidence admissible under MCL 768.27b, courts should
weigh the propensity inference in favor of the evidence’s probative value rather than its prejudicial
effect.” Id. at ___; slip op at 10. In doing so, this Court has incorporated the “nonexhaustive list
of considerations” provided in People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450, 487-488; 818 NW2d 296 (2012):
(1) the dissimilarity between the other acts and the charged crime, (2) the temporal
proximity of the other acts to the charged crime, (3) the infrequency of the other
acts, (4) the presence of intervening acts, (5) the lack of reliability of the evidence
supporting the occurrence of the other acts, and (6) the lack of need for evidence
1 There was some debate in the proceedings below as to whether the victim in this case qualified
as a member of defendant’s household under MCL 768.27b. The trial court ultimately concluded
that he did, and the parties do not challenge this determination on appeal.

-- 4 of 7 --

-5-
beyond the complainant’s and the defendant’s testimony. This list of
considerations is meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.
But these considerations are only “a tool to facilitate, not a standard to supplant, a trial court’s
MRE 403 analysis.” Berklund, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 10 (quotation marks and citation
omitted).
We conclude that the trial court should have excluded DC’s testimony under MRE 403.
Although DC’s testimony had some probative value, that value was limited by the considerable
factual differences between the two incidents. DC was an adult woman who shared a child with
defendant, whereas the victim in this case was a teenage boy who was living temporarily on
defendant’s property. These differences lead us to conclude that DC’s testimony had only
marginal probative value. The question under MRE 403 is whether the marginal probative value
of DC’s testimony was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. In making that
determination, we consider the risk that the emotional impact of DC’s testimony would cause the
jury to give the evidence undue weight to or decide the case on an improper basis. Notably, the
trial court itself expressed its concern about the emotional effect of DC’s testimony on the jury to
the point it even considered striking it from the record. Given the substantial factual differences
between the allegations and the trial court’s firsthand assessment of the testimony’s emotional
effect, we conclude that the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the limited
probative value of DC’s testimony. DC’s testimony, therefore, should have been excluded under
MRE 403.
The error, however, was harmless. The victim testified in detail regarding defendant’s
repeated assaults and described the sexual acts underlying each charged offense. Specifically, the
victim testified that, on multiple occasions when the two were alone, defendant would pull the
victim’s clothes off, hold him down on the bed in defendant’s room, and touch his penis. The
victim further testified that defendant forced the victim’s hand onto his own penis and put his
mouth on the victim’s penis during every assault. Although portions of his testimony contained
inconsistencies, his testimony provided strong and convincing evidence for a reasonable jury to
find that defendant committed the charged offenses. Given the strength of the properly admitted
evidence, the trial court’s improper admission of DC’s testimony was harmless and does not
warrant reversal. See, e.g., People v Pipes, 475 Mich 267, 283; 715 NW2d 290 (2006) (erroneous
admission of evidence was harmless given the extent of properly admitted evidence of the
defendant’s guilt).
IV. PRIOR STATEMENTS UNDER MCL 768.27C
Defendant next argues that the trial court erred by admitting Detective Edwards’s
testimony. We disagree.
Detective Edwards’s testimony was admitted under MCL 768.27c(1), which provides:
(1) Evidence of a statement by a declarant is admissible if all of the
following apply:
(a) The statement purports to narrate, describe, or explain the infliction or
threat of physical injury upon the declarant.

-- 5 of 7 --

-6-
(b) The action in which the evidence is offered under this section is an
offense involving domestic violence, or a violation of chapter LXVII or chapter
LXVIIA of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.448 to 750.462 and
750.462a to 750.462h.
(c) The statement was made at or near the time of the infliction or threat of
physical injury. Evidence of a statement made more than 5 years before the filing
of the current action or proceeding is inadmissible under this section.
(d) The statement was made under circumstances that would indicate the
statement’s trustworthiness.
(e) The statement was made to a law enforcement officer.
Defendant contends that Detective Edwards’s testimony was inadmissible because MCL
768.27c(1)(c) and (d) were not satisfied, and because, again, it was barred by MRE 403.
We begin by noting that, while this Court has not expressly addressed how close in time a
report must be made to be considered “at or near the time” of the injury, it has nonetheless
impliedly held that the time frame in this case satisfies the “at or near” temporal requirement. In
People v Meissner, 294 Mich App 438, 442-443; 812 NW2d 37 (2011), the victim reported to
police that the defendant had threatened her that day, but also informed police that defendant had,
“over the prior months,” destroyed her phone, pushed her down the stairs, and put her in a
chokehold. This Court held that the victim’s late-November 2009 report was sufficiently “at or
near” the time of the prior injuries she described, including “an August 2009 confrontation with
[the] defendant, in which she thought she would die from the way he was choking her.” Id. at 447-
448. A nearly identical span of time occurred in this case. While the specific days are unknown,
the record indicates that defendant’s assaults on the victim had to have occurred between late July
and mid-August, because the assaults stopped by the time the victim returned to school. The victim
then reported the assaults in mid-November 2023, establishing a substantially similar time frame
to the one deemed appropriate in Meissner. Thus, the victim’s statements in this case
“fulfilled . . . the temporal requirement in subsection (1)(c).” Id. at 448.
Next, defendant argues that the victim’s narration to Detective Edwards did not satisfy the
trustworthy requirement of MCL 768.27c(1)(d). Although defendant’s argument this point is
brief, he appears to argue that the circumstances did not indicate trustworthiness in this case
because (1) it was made months later and “the statute plainly recognizes that nearness to the event
is a required indicia of trustworthiness[,]” and (2) it was not corroborated by anything besides the
victim’s testimony.
Defendant’s first argument conflates the time limitation in MCL 768.27c(1)(c) with the
separate trustworthiness requirement in MCL 768.27c(1)(d). Subsection (1)(d) only requires that
the statement be made under circumstances that would indicate its trustworthiness. Neither this
subsection nor the relevant considerations regarding trustworthiness provided in subsection (2)
makes temporal proximity a prerequisite to a finding of trustworthiness.
Next, defendant claims that corroboration of the victim’s testimony, alone, is insufficient,
but provides no legal authority to support that position. In fact, MCL 768.27c(2)(c) explicitly

-- 6 of 7 --

-7-
considers a circumstance in which “the statement is corroborated by evidence other than statements
that are admissible only under this section.” The victim’s testimony falls squarely within this
definition. Moreover, the factors listed in MCL 768.27c(2) are not exclusive. Defendant fails to
explain why the trial court erred by concluding that Detective Edwards’s adherence to the forensic
interview protocols further supported the trustworthiness of the victim’s statements under MCL
768.27c(1)(d).
Finally, defendant again argues that Detective Edwards’s testimony should have been
excluded under MRE 403. He first claims, without support, that the probative value of Detective
Edwards’s testimony was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice because it only
served to bolster the victim’s credibility in a case that ultimately came down to a credibility contest.
But nothing in MCL 768.27c imposes any restrictions on how the evidence may be used, and this
Court may not read language into an unambiguous statute. People v Haynes, 281 Mich App 27,
29; 760 NW2d 283 (2008). Moreover, defendant fails to explain how bolstering a victim’s
credibility “has a tendency to adversely affect the objecting party’s position by injecting
considerations extraneous to the merits of the lawsuit, e.g., the jury’s bias, sympathy, anger, or
shock[,]” Berklund, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 9 (quotation marks and citation omitted), such
that it qualifies as being unfairly prejudicial under MRE 403. “An appellant may not merely
announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims,
nor may he give only cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority.” People
v Green, 313 Mich App 526, 535; 884 NW2d 838 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Affirmed.
/s/ Thomas C. Cameron
/s/ Mark T. Boonstra
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

-- 7 of 7 --