Sufficiency of the evidence; First-degree murder; Premeditation; People v. Hoffmeister; People v. DeLisle; Identifying the defendant as a perpetrator; People v. Yost; Premeditation & deliberation; People v. Plummer; Time to “take a second look”; People v. Abraham; People v. Unger; Evidence of flight; Relevance; MRE 401; People v. Pickens; MRE 403; People v. Murphy (On Remand); Failure to investigate other possible witnesses; People v. Anstey; Arizona v. Youngblood; Jury instruction on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter; People v. Mendoza; People v. Tierney; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to consult and call an expert in eyewitness identification; MCL 775.15; People v. Carnicom; Failure to request an instruction on voluntary manslaughter; People v. Goodin; Right to testify; Waived issue; People v. Simmons; People v. Stokes; Failure to disclose evidence; MCR 7.210(A)(1); People v. Powell; People v. Elston

There was sufficient evidence of premeditation to support the defendant’s first-degree murder conviction. On appeal, he challenged the evidence identifying him as a perpetrator, but the thrust of his argument was that he lacked premeditation and deliberation. First, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that he was the perpetrator. His own witness testified that he was nearby during an argument between victim-S and C about S’s choice to bring his children to an adult party. Later, S’s 11-year-old son, GLJ, observed defendant threaten to “kill this n*****” when he was looking for S. S’s girlfriend, K, “specifically identified defendant as a part of the angry crowd that approached” S. K was “familiar with defendant from high school and family relationships.” Although S’s “friend could not identify the shooter at trial, he explained that the same person who he heard threatening to ‘blow . . . somebody’s face off’” later shot S. K and GLJ “identified defendant as that shooter when making reports to police, in photographic lineups, and at trial.” They were eyewitnesses to the shooting. It took place in front of K’s van with GLJ in the backseat. They “both testified to clearly observing defendant raise a black gun to” S’s head and shooting S. Given all of these facts, a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant was the perpetrator. Second, the record showed that he did not take a second look after observing the argument between C and S. “Instead, more than 30 minutes later, he had not calmed down like the rest of the crowd, he was searching for” S, and he was threatening to kill him. “Defendant also had time to reconsider his actions after he looked for” S in K’s minivan, as he walked down the street with the crowd in search of S. Once he found S, “he still could have taken a second look when he was ordering” S to get into the van and leave. Instead, when S did not comply, defendant shot him. Also, the “jury could infer that defendant was conscious of his guilt when, after the shooting, he went to another state, and when confronted by police there, used a false name and refused to provide his birthdate.” These actions did not refute that defendant premeditated the shooting. Affirmed.