Jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter; People v. Gillis; People v. Mendoza; People v. Datema; People v. Mills; Malice; People v. Holtschlag; People v. Goecke; Jury instruction on accident; M Crim JI 7.3a & 7.2; People v. Hess; Effect of the jury’s finding that defendant was guilty of felony murder; People v. Hawthorne; Right to present a defense; People v. Yost; People v. Richardson; Sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant’s felony murder conviction; People v. Gayheart; Minimal circumstantial evidence proving state of mind; People v. Kanaan; Great weight of the evidence; People v. Musser; People v. Lemmon; People v. Bosca

The court held that defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter or accident, and was not denied his constitutional right to present a defense. Further, there was sufficient evidence to support his felony murder conviction, which was not against the great weight of the evidence. He was also convicted of felony-firearm, armed robbery, and felon in possession. As to his involuntary manslaughter instruction argument, “there was no evidence presented that could have led to a conclusion that defendant did not act with malice.” Witness-W and others testified that defendant put a gun to W’s ribs and demanded his money. Even if the testimony as to robbery should not have been considered, the court was “left with the unrefuted evidence that defendant took his gun and struck [W] on the head, causing a deep gash and a loss of consciousness.” He did not and could not argue “that this act was done without malice.” Thus, even disregarding the testimony of all but one witness, the court could not conclude “that there was any evidence that would support a finding of involuntary manslaughter. The axiom: ‘If the homicide was committed with malice, it is murder,’” guided its decision. When the shot was fired, killing victim-M, “defendant was using his loaded weapon to intentionally strike [W], suggesting that at a minimum, defendant acted with a willful and wonton disregard of the likelihood that his actions would cause death or great bodily harm.” Further, even if the act of striking W’s head “caused the gun to fire, such conduct is the negation of accident” – it is the definition of malice. As to his sufficiency argument, the evidence showed that he stuck a gun in W’s ribs and demanded that W turn over his money. M told him to leave W alone. Defendant then hit W over the head with his gun, splitting his head and causing him to lose consciousness. “Depending on whose testimony was to be believed,” he then shot M “either almost simultaneous to the attempted robbery or about 15 seconds after” hitting W with his gun. Either way, there was legally sufficient evidence for the jury to find that he shot M “because he interfered with his robbery” of W. Affirmed.