Motion for a directed verdict; People v. Aldrich; People v. McKewen; Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Nowack; People v. Brown; Armed robbery; People v. Chambers; Aiding & abetting; MCL 767.39; People v. Robinson; Admission of text messages as MRE 404(b) evidence; People v. Bynum; People v. Jackson; People v. Mahone; People v. Waterstone; People v. Crawford; Relevance; MRE 401 & 402; People v. Sabin; Materiality; MRE 404(b)(1); People v. Denson; People v. VanderVliet; People v. Felton; People v. Hine; MRE 403; People v. Sharpe; Mere similarity; People v. Steele; Harmless error; MCL 769.26; People v. Williams; People v. Mateo; People v. Hawthorne; People v. Lukity; People v. Burns; Credibility; People v. Lemmon; Inferring consciousness of guilt from lying; People v. Unger; Presumption jurors follow their instructions; People v. Dupree

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s armed robbery conviction as an aider and abettor. Further, although the trial court erred by admitting the text messages, the court could not conclude that she was entitled to relief, as the admission amounted to harmless error. She argued that the trial court erred by denying her motion for a directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence of her guilt. She was convicted as an aider and abettor to her son (D), who allegedly carried out the physical robbery. As defendant viewed it, the only evidence supporting her connection to the crime was that she “engaged in a sexual act with the victim shortly before the robbery near her house and her connection to the alleged assailant as his mother.” The court first concluded that the evidence was sufficient to show that D committed the crime. “The victim testified that he was walking in the street when a ‘tall’ and ‘muscular’ individual approached him with a gun. This assailant ordered the victim to give him money and the victim gave him a little over $300. The victim testified that defendant was one of only two people who knew that he was at defendant’s home and that she was the only one who knew when he was leaving the home. Because of this and the victim’s identification of certain physical features, the victim believed” that D was the person who robbed him. He also believed that he recognized D as the robber because he looked at a photo of D “that was hanging in defendant’s home shortly before the robbery.” An investigation revealed one set of footprints in the snow leading away from the crime scene. The tracks led through defendant’s backyard and to D, who “was wearing Nike shoes with the Nike swoop insignia on them.” Those shoes matched the footprints. Thus, the first element was satisfied. Second, there was sufficient evidence that she “gave encouragement that assisted the commission of the crime . . . .” The officers retrieved the contents of defendant’s and D’s cell phones. They found two text messages sent on the night of the robbery, indicating that defendant informed D the victim was there. Further, “the aftermath of the assailant’s flight from the scene directly tied defendant to the case.” Evidence supported the inference that she contacted D “after the armed robbery to coordinate stories and assist [him] in changing his clothes and hiding some physical evidence.” Affirmed.