(1) whether the omission of any reference to MRE 403 in MCL 768.27a (as compared to MCL 768.27b(1)), while mandating that evidence of other offenses “is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant,” would violate a defendant's due process right to a fair trial and (2) whether the Court should rule that evidence of other offenses described in MCL 768.27a is admissible only if it is not otherwise excluded under MRE 403.People v. Pullen, 489 Mich. 864, 795 N.W.2d 147 (2011).

In the Watkins and Pullen cases, the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to determine whether MCL 768.27a prevailed over MRE 404(b) to permit other acts evidence for the purpose of showing a propensity to commit a similar act. People v Watkins, 489 Mich 863; 795 NW2d 147 (2011); People v Pullen, 489 Mich 864; 795 NW2d 147 (2011). Our Supreme Court ruled on this matter and held that MCL 768.27a does not infringe on the Court's authority regarding rules of practice and procedure.

People v Brown, _Mich App_; __ NW2d__ (Docket No. 297728, issued October 20, 2011) (slip op at 5). People v Pullen, 489 Mich 864; 795 NW2d 147 (2011). MCR 7.215(C)(2).

We note that the Michigan Supreme Court has granted leave to decide whether MCL 768.27a and MRE 404(b) conflict and, if so, whether the statute or the rule of evidence controls, and whether the statute's failure to require that evidence admitted under the statute comply with MRE 403 violates a defendant's constitutional due process right to a fair trial. See People v Watkins, 489 Mich 863; 795 NW2d 147 (2011); People v Pullen, 489 Mich 864; 795 NW2d 147 (2011). --------

Our Supreme Court is also currently addressing this issue. In Watkins, 489 Mich at 863, and People v Pullen, 489 Mich 864; 795 NW2d 147 (2011), our Supreme Court directed the parties to address "whether the omission of any reference to MRE 403 in MCL 768.27a (as compared to MCL 768.27b(1)), while mandating that evidence of other offenses 'is admissible for any purpose for which it is relevant,' would violate a defendant's due process right to a fair trial[.]" Moreover, in Pullen, the Court directed the parties to address "whether the Court should rule that evidence of other offenses described in MCL 768.27a is admissible only if it is not otherwise excluded under MRE 403.

People v Pattison, 276 Mich App 613, 619-620; 741 NW2d 558 (2007). However, the Supreme Court has pending appeals addressing this issue; see People v Pullen, 489 Mich 864; ____ NW2d ____ (2011), and People v Watkins, 489 Mich 863; 795 NW2d 147 (2011). Regardless, the evidence in the present case was admissible under MRE 404(b).

We note that our Supreme Court has granted leave to decide whether MCL 768.27a and MRE 404(b) conflict and, if so, whether the statute or the rule of evidence controls, and whether the statute's failure to require that evidence admitted under the statute comply with MRE 403 violates a defendant's constitutional due process right to a fair trial. See People v Watkins, 489 Mich 863; 795 NW2d 147 (2011); People v Pullen, 489 Mich 864; 795 NW2d 147 (2011). Under MCL 768.27a(1), "evidence that the defendant committed another listed offense against a minor is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.