Motion for a new trial on the basis the defendant’s conviction was against the great weight of the evidence; People v. Young; People v. Ericksen; Credibility; People v. Lemmon; Sufficiency of the evidence to support a felonious assault conviction; People v. Henderson; People v. Kanaan; Whether the trial court properly ruled that questions regarding the legality of the repossession were irrelevant; People v. Layher; Relevant evidence; MRE 401 & 402; People v. Eliason; Judicial impartiality; People v. Stevens; MRE 614(b); People v. Cheeks

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant-Kirby’s motion for a new trial and there was sufficient evidence to support his felonious assault conviction. He was convicted of felonious assault and felony-firearm. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial on the basis that his conviction was against the great weight of the evidence because victim-G’s testimony was so incredible that the jury should not have believed it. The only people who saw the entire confrontation (which occurred when G was trying to repossess a car) were G, Kirby, and witness-S (Kirby’s girlfriend). Kirby and S testified that Kirby did not threaten G with the gun, while G “testified that Kirby pointed it at him. This conflicting testimony was well within the ability of the jury to resolve.” Kirby also contended that G “gave inconsistent accounts of how Kirby handled the gun. In his first 911 call,” G only stated that “Kirby pointed the gun at him and told him to release the car.” At the preliminary exam, G testified that Kirby pointed the gun at the door of G’s truck. During trial, G testified that Kirby pointed his gun at the truck’s window. However, G “later explained that the window was part of the truck’s door.” The court held that G’s “testimony was not directly contradictory, nor was it so far impeached that it was deprived of all probative value.” Also, the jury had access to the remainder of the information Kirby claimed impeached G, including that G had strong motives to properly repossess S’s car, “and it reasonably chose to believe him.” Affirmed.