Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Lane; The law of the case doctrine; Ingham Cnty. v. Michigan Cnty. Rd. Comm’n Self-Ins. Pool; Bennett v. Bennett; The court’s prerogative to give both defendants in a consolidated appeal after a joint trial the benefit of its decision on an issue raised by only one of them; People v. Hayden; The court’s authority to address issues in the interest of justice; People v. Cain

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court again held that the trial court erred by finding the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to convict defendant of conspiracy, and by repeating “its sufficiency analysis on remand while ordering a new trial for defendant ostensibly on the basis of the great weight of the evidence.” However, it found that the evidentiary error over which the Supreme Court granted his codefendant a new trial entitled defendant to one as well. Thus, it remanded for that purpose. He was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The trial court entered a directed verdict of acquittal based on insufficient evidence, and alternatively granted a new trial on the basis that the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. However, it sentenced his codefendant as a third-offense habitual offender to life in prison. In a prior appeal, the court reversed and remanded for sentencing based on the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded. The court in turn remanded to the trial court, which reiterated its conclusion as to the sufficiency of the evidence. The court then found that the trial court engaged in sufficiency review to the exclusion of great-weight review, and again remanded for sentencing and entry of a judgment of sentence consistent with the jury’s verdict. In lieu of granting leave, the Supreme Court again remanded to the court for reconsideration in light of the its decision in his codefendant’s case. The court now found that the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the evidence resulting from the improper showup invalidated his codefendant’s guilty verdict “compels the conclusion that it also invalidated defendant’s guilty verdict. The question then becomes the relief to which" he was entitled. Although the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the showup was unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable, and its consequent decision to suppress any evidence from the showup while remanding that case for a new trial, “undercuts one of the key bases for rejecting defendant’s sufficiency challenge all along, as [that case] itself illustrates, evidentiary error does not call for sufficiency review confined to the properly admitted evidence and the potential remedy of acquittal, but rather offers the remedy of retrial.”