First-degree premeditated murder; MCL 750.316(1)(a); Premeditation; People v. Oros; Admission of rap music lyrics allegedly written by a defendant; Authentication; MRE 901(a) & (b)(1); Relevance; MRE 401 & 402; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v. Blackston; Balancing; People v. Sharpe; Harmless error; MCL 769.26; People v. Thorpe; Constitutional right to a speedy trial; Barker v. Wingo; People v. Williams; Conviction as an aider & abettor; MCL 767.39; People v. Robinson; Waiver; People v. Carines; Sentencing; Mandatory sentence of life without parole; MCL 750.316(1); Applicability of Miller v. Alabama to a defendant who was 18 years old at the time of the crime; Roper v. Simmons; People v. Hall; Cruel &/or unusual punishment; People v. Hallak; Restitution; MCL 780.766 & 780.767; People v. Byard

The court held that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support defendant-Harris’s first-degree murder conviction. Further, while some rap lyrics he had allegedly written should have been excluded as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, he failed to show that a miscarriage of justice occurred. As to defendant-Parks, (1) his right to a speedy trial was not violated, (2) there was sufficient evidence to support his first-degree murder conviction as an aider and abettor, and (3) his claim that his life without parole sentence was unconstitutional failed under Hall. But the court remanded as to his order of restitution. They were jointly tried before separate juries for the victim’s fatal shooting. Harris argued that there was insufficient evidence of premeditation to support his conviction under MCL 750.313(1)(a). But the court held that a rational jury could find that he “obtained ammunition on the day of the shooting, sought out the victim” in retaliation for a prior murder, discussed the victim’s murder with Parks, “and obtained Parks’s gun for this purpose. Harris donned a mask, checked inside the store briefly, and went back to the parking lot, at which point he discharged his gun at the victim. Given that a ‘second look’ can require mere seconds of premeditation and deliberation, a rational jury could also have found that Harris and Parks did not know that the victim would be at the store but that, upon seeing him in the red truck, they decided to murder him at that time. Either conclusion would have supported a finding of premeditation and deliberation.” As to the lyrics, some were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial while others were not. But given the strength of the prosecution’s case, Harris did not show that it was “more probable than not” that there was a miscarriage of justice. The court rejected Parks’s right to a speedy trial claim given that only one of the four Barker factors weighed in his favor. As to his sufficiency of the evidence claim, “a rational jury could find that Parks and Harris planned the murder of the victim in retaliation for the murder of Harris’s cousin and that Parks gave the gun to Harris for this express purpose.” Affirmed but remanded for a determination of the value of the victim’s truck in relation to Parks’s restitution order.