Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions of assault with intent to murder (AWIM), assault with intent to do great bodily harm (AWIGBH), felon in possession (FIP), & felony-firearm; People v. Hoffman; People v. Terry; People v. Parcha; Intent; People v. Cochran; People v. Jackson; People v. Mitchell; People v. Lugo; People v. Harrington; Identity; People v. Yost; People v. Garcia; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); People v. Knox; Relevance; People v. Bergman; MRE 403; Unfair prejudice; People v. Goree; People v. Crawford; People v. Meadows; People v. Blackston; False statement allowing an inference of consciousness of guilt; People v. Wolford; Prosecutorial error; Asking a witness to comment on another witness’s credibility; People v. Buckey; People v. Musser; Unresponsive answers; People v. Jackson (On Reconsideration); People v. Barker; Availability of a curative instruction; People v. Ackerman; Introducing evidence expressly permitted by the trial court; People v. Curry; Witness intimidation; People v. Clark; People v. Canter; People v. Crabtree; People v. Stacy; Photographic evidence; Motion to suppress evidence obtained after police used a cell phone’s tracking application; United States v. Jones; Kyllo v. United States; People v. Kazmierczak; Reasonable expectation of privacy; People v. Smith; People v. Taylor; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Frazier; People v. Pratt; Bill of particulars; MCR 6.110(A) & 112(E); People v. McBride

The court held that evidence the defendants intentionally shot at the victim (B) within range and without excuse, justification, or mitigating circumstances was sufficient to prove AWIM and AWIGBH. There was also sufficient evidence that they possessed firearms. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged other acts evidence or photographic evidence, and the court rejected their prosecutorial error claims. Defendant-Ray-El’s motion to suppress was properly denied because he did not identify a constitutionally protected area into which police intruded without a warrant. The court also rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error claims. Defendant-Smith was convicted of AWIGBH, FIP, and felony-firearm. Ray-El was convicted of AWIM and felony-firearm. Smith challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and Ray-El raised a similar claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the AWIM charge. A surveillance video showed a man witness-R identified as Ray-El approaching the driver’s side of B’s car. B said that he drove off after a man fired a gun at him. “The video showed the man identified as Ray-El firing a shot, falling, getting up, and then firing several more shots at” B’s car as it drove away. B testified “that he could hear a different gun firing at him as he drove away.” The surveillance video showed him driving away to the left and “gunshots could be heard after Ray-El lowered his arm and turned away from the vehicle, which indicated that a second gunman was present.” Evidence showed that B’s car was hit at least three times and B sustained a gunshot wound to the leg. “The surveillance video showed the visible gunman—identified as Ray-El—and the two boys all running off to the right. Moments later, a fourth person,” whom R identified as Smith, “entered camera range from the left and ran after the other three.” R testified that moments after “the gunshots, Smith, Ray-El, and the two boys ran into her home and Ray-El had a gun in his hand. This evidence, if believed, supported an inference that Smith was present and that he was the second shooter.” Affirmed.