Whether the failure to properly swear the jury required reversal of the defendant’s convictions; People v. Cain; MCL 768.14; MCR 2.511(H)(1); “Plain error” review; People v. Carines; Sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant’s assault with intent to murder (AWIM), felony-firearm, & felon in possession convictions; People v. Brown; People v. Perkins; Possession; People v. Burgenmeyer; Jury’s determinations as to the weight of the evidence & the witnesses’ credibility; People v. Unger (On Remand); Sentencing; “Cruel and/or unusual punishment” claim; People v. Poole; Principle that a proportionate sentence is not cruel or unusual punishment; People v. Powell; Effect of defendant’s “advanced age or endangered health”; People v. Bowling; Scoring of OV 6; Whether defendant’s right against self-incrimination was violated when he had to acknowledge the existence of his prior convictions at sentencing; Habitual offender enhancement; MCL 769.13(5); People v. Marshall; People v. Zinn; People v. Green; People v. Williams

[Unpublished opinion.] Concluding that the failure to properly swear the jury did not require reversal of the defendant’s convictions, and that there was sufficient evidence that he possessed the gun and used it to assault victim-L with the intent to commit murder, the court affirmed his AWIM, felony-firearm, and felon in possession convictions. It also rejected his sentencing challenges. Reviewing the jury oath issue for plain error, the court noted that the “failure to administer the juror’s oath comprised an error, and this error is clear or obvious.” However, as in Cain, it declined to address whether defendant satisfied the third Carines prong because, even if he did, it was “not persuaded that the failure to swear the jury seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings in this case,” and he did not argue that he was actually innocent. The “purpose of imparting to the jurors their duties was largely fulfilled by the trial court’s instructions.” It emphasized during jury selection “the importance of keeping an open mind and to be free to the extent humanly possible of bias, prejudice, or sympathy for either side. The prospective jurors took an oath ‘to answer truthfully all questions put to [them] touching upon [their] qualifications to serve as jurors[.]’” They indicated during voir dire that “they could be fair and impartial” and would decide the case pursuant to the trial court’s instructions. “After the jury was chosen, the trial court repeatedly instructed the jurors on the importance of deciding the case solely on the basis of the evidence admitted at trial and to follow the law as given to the jury in the trial court’s instructions.” The court held that “the objectives served by the oath were achieved, albeit imperfectly, by alternative means, such that the failure to administer the oath did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings.” Ample testimony supported that “defendant shot and possessed the gun.” Police found it on the lawn next to him, along with a holster, a set of keys, and a box of ammunition. While he denied possessing a gun, ammunition, or a holster, and shooting L or shooting at others, “the jury plainly believed the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses.”