Sufficiency of the evidence; Second-degree murder; People v. Smith; “Malice”; People v. Werner; People v. Hansen; People v. Mesik (On Reconsideration); Human trafficking of a minor involving commercial sexual activity; MCL 750.462e(a); M Crim JI 36.4a; Photographic evidence; Relevance; MRE 401 & 402; People v. Cameron; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v. Mills; People v. Fisher; Consecutive sentencing under the human trafficking statute; MCL 750.462f(5); People v. Ryan; Scoring of OV 5; People v. Calloway; MCL 777.35(1)(a); Scoring of OV 9; MCL 777.39(1)(c); “Victim”; People v. Gullett; People v. Gratsch; People v. Sargent; Proximity; Scoring of OV 10; MCL 777.40(1)(a); “Predatory conduct”; MCL 777.40(3)(a); People v. Huston; People v. Cannon; Scoring of OV 11; MCL 777.41(1)(a), (2)(a), & (2)(c); People v. Johnson; Scoring of OV 14; MCL 777.44(1)(a) & (2)(a); People v. Rhodes (On Remand); People v. Dickinson; Scoring of OV 19; MCL 777.49(c); People v. Hershey; People v. Smith; People v. Sours; Resentencing; People v. Francisco

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s second-degree murder and human trafficking of a minor involving commercial sexual activity convictions, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting color photos of the victim’s (C) decomposed body, and that there were no errors requiring resentencing. He was convicted of multiple offenses for shooting C during a pay-for-sex date he arranged with a minor (AB). The court found that the evidence showed he intentionally killed C “and no mitigating circumstances, such as self-defense or an accident, were present to negate the clear presence of malice.” Further, the evidence showed he manipulated AB “into engaging in pay-for-sex activities when she was a minor; that she informed [him] that she wanted to stop this activity, but [he] would not let her stop, including through the use of physical violence; that [he] set up and controlled almost every aspect of the pay-for-sex enterprise; and that she turned all the money for her pay-for-sex encounters over to” him. As to the admission of color photos of C’s decomposed body, “the trial court endeavored to judiciously balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect, and its decision to admit the photo[s], which were relevant to material issues at trial, was within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” The trial court also did not err by ordering that his sentence for human trafficking enterprise involving death be served consecutive to his other sentences. It “considered the offenses and the offender and decided that consecutive sentences were appropriate under the circumstances.” Finally, although some of defendant’s OVs were erroneously scored, resentencing was not required. The court upheld that 15-point score for OV 5, the 50-point score for OV 11, and the 10-point scores for OV 14 and 19. As to OV 9, the evidence did not support a finding that his conduct placed a child in danger of physical injury or death. As to OV 10, it held that the evidence did not support that he “engaged in preoffense conduct directed at [C] with the intent to victimize him by shooting him.” But the court concluded that “[b]ecause the scoring errors do not affect the appropriate guidelines range for either offense,” he was not entitled to resentencing. Affirmed, but remanded for the ministerial task of correcting defendant’s guidelines score.