"A trial court abuses its discretion when it chooses an outcome falling outside the range of principled outcomes." In re Kerr, 323 Mich App 407, 411; 917 NW2d 408 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court will reverse a trial court's finding of fact only if "this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made."
A trial court's decision to exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion which occurs when the court "chooses an outcome falling outside the range of principled outcomes." In re Kerr, 323 Mich App 407, 411; 917 NW2d 408 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The interpretation of statutes and court rules are reviewed de novo, with consideration that unambiguous language is enforced as written.
"A trial court abuses its discretion when it chooses an outcome falling outside the range of principled outcomes." In re Kerr , 323 Mich. App. 407, 411, 917 N.W.2d 408 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court will reverse a trial court's finding of fact only if "this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made."
Because juvenile delinquency proceedings are analogous to criminal proceedings, "this Court routinely looks to the adult criminal code and cases that interpret it so long as they are not in conflict or duplicative of a juvenile code provision." In re Kerr, 323 Mich App 407, 414; 917 NW2d 408 (2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "Generally, to prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show that he was denied a fair and impartial trial."
Juvenile delinquency proceedings are "closely analogous to the criminal process." In re Kerr, 323 Mich.App. 407, 414; 917 N.W.2d 408 (2018) (citation omitted).
And, as noted, Beck and other decisions say the opposite-even as to juveniles. See People v Cowhy, 330 Mich.App. 452, 467 n 6; 948 N.W.2d 632 (2019) (recognizing that offenses "allegedly committed as a juvenile" could be admitted under MCL 768.27a); In re Kerr, 323 Mich.App. 407, 414-415; 917 N.W.2d 408 (2018) (concluding that MCL 768.27a applies during juvenile delinquency proceedings, when any other offense necessarily would have been committed when the individual was a juvenile).
Juvenile delinquency proceedings are not criminal prosecutions, but are closely analogous. In re Kerr, 323 Mich.App. 407, 412; 917 N.W.2d 408 (2018). In juvenile delinquency proceedings, the standard of proof at the adjudicative stage, as in adult criminal proceedings, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
" '[W]hen addressing a question implicating the juvenile code, this Court routinely looks to the adult criminal code and cases that interpret it so long as they are not in conflict or duplicative of a juvenile code provision.'" People v Kerr (In re Kerr), 323 Mich.App. 407, 414; 917 N.W.2d 408 (2018), quoting State v Killich (In re Killich), 319 Mich.App. 331, 337; 900 N.W.2d 692 (2017).
We have previously concluded that MCL 768.27a applies during juvenile delinquency proceedings, when any other offense necessarily would have been committed when the individual was a juvenile. See In re Kerr, 323 Mich.App. 407, 414-415; 917 N.W.2d 408 (2018). Although nonbinding, caselaw involving the admission of other-acts under FRE 414, the federal counterpart to MCL 768.27a, supports that other acts committed as a juvenile may be admissible in a case brought against an adult defendant, despite the defendant's young age at the time of the past offenses.
Unambiguous language of a court rule or statute is enforced as written. In re Kerr, 323 Mich App 407, 411; 917 NW2d 408 (2018). MCR 2.621(B)(2) provides, "The judgment creditor may obtain relief under MCL 600.6110, and discovery under subchapter 2.300 of these rules."