People v. Carner

I concur in reversing and remanding for a new trial.

I do not, however, share the conclusion that the trial judge abused his discretion by the way he handled the prior similar sexual acts testimony. Defendant argues that the similar act testimony was improperly admitted. In People v Yeo,1 this Court analyzed the admissibility of prior bad acts under MRE 404(b) and stated:

"[T]his Court imposed three standards to establish a foundation for similar acts evidence: (1) substantial evidence that defendant perpetrated the bad act, (2) *581that the bad act be probative of defendant’s motive, intent,…