Admission of two shotguns & pieces of personal identification; MRE 402; People v. Benton; “Relevant evidence” (MRE 401); MRE 403; People v. VanderVliet; People v. Blackston; “Unfair prejudice”; People v. McGhee; MRE 404(b); People v. Mardlin; The res gestae; People v. Jackson; People v. Sholl; People v. Malone; Sufficiency of the evidence that an attempted larceny occurred as required by the armed robbery statute; People v. Harverson; People v. Nowack; People v. Chambers; “In the course of committing a larceny”; MCL 750.530(2); People v. Williams; Intent; People v. Cain; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Strickland v. Washington; People v. Trakhtenberg; People v. Vaughn; People v. Reinhardt; People v. Hill; Matters of trial strategy; People v. Grant; Decisions whether to call witnesses as matters of trial strategy; People v. Ackerman; People v. Dixon; A “substantial defense”; People v. Marshall; Alibi testimony; People v. McGinnis; Factual predicate requirement; People v. Hoag

The court held that the pieces of personal identification found in the house where the defendant was arrested were relevant to the charged conduct and admissible under MRE 401. Further, they were properly admitted under MRE 403 and MRE 404(b). It concluded that any error in admitting two shotguns also found in the house was harmless. Further, the evidence was sufficient to support his armed robbery conviction, and the court rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. He was “charged with armed robbery and the larceny element was at issue because no property was actually taken from the victim.” The fact that he was “arrested near various identifications that did not belong to him make it seem more probable that his intention was to rob the victim near the ATM that had been the location of numerous robberies.” While the identifications were not valid res gestae evidence, “they were admissible under MRE 404(b).” Given the “possible pattern of repeated ATM robberies, the evidence of other ATM robberies was logically relevant to show that the armed robbery of the victim was committed as part of characteristic ‘scheme, plan, or system in doing an act.’” Further, their admission “did not violate MRE 403. Defendant’s intent when approaching the victim in the parking lot was an essential fact at issue necessary to prove the larceny element of the armed robbery charge.” The risk of unfair prejudice also “did not substantially outweigh the probative force” of the evidence. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, the victim testified that “defendant approached her van while she was using an ATM that was alone in an empty parking lot.” He “seemed to act in concert with a man hiding in bushes. As the victim fled the parking lot, she saw defendant with a handgun and heard a gunshot.” Testimony showed that they “had no prior relationship that could have provided an alternative motive for defendant chasing her van with a gun.” While she was able to flee before he “could take any property from her,” and he “did not verbally demand any property from the victim, the reasonable inference from defendant’s actions” was that he intended to steal her “money after she used the ATM.” Affirmed.