Sufficiency of the evidence; First-degree premeditated murder; MCL 750.316; People v Oros; Motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence; People v Cress; Motion to suppress eyewitnesses’ identification; Evidence of the “no snitch code”; Relevance; MRE 401; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403

The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant-Highshaw’s first-degree murder conviction. Further, it was not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made in the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the “no snitch code” where it “had significant probative value because it explained why the witnesses waited several months before identifying Highshaw as the shooter.” There also was nothing on the record indicating it was unfairly prejudicial. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, similar to Oros, in this case the evidence of premeditation and deliberation included more than just the number of wounds inflicted on victim-R. Specifically, although there was evidence that R and Highshaw were having a loud argument before the shooting, the record lacked any evidence suggesting that R was the initial aggressor. Instead, the record reflected that “during a verbal dispute, Highshaw drew a firearm, aimed it at [R] and fired the gun multiple times. Based on that, the jury could infer that Highshaw had an opportunity to take a second look after drawing his gun and aiming it. They could also infer an opportunity to take a second look based on the fact that after [R] fell to the ground, Highshaw stood over him and continued to shoot him.” Moreover, considering that five of the shots were to R’s head, it was “reasonable to infer that Highshaw was not firing blindly. He took the time to ensure that each shot hit where he intended.” Affirmed.