Sufficiency of the evidence; Aiding & abetting; Intent; AWIM; Intentional discharge of a firearm from a vehicle; Felony-firearm; Severance of trials; Self-defense jury instruction; Sentencing; People v Tanner; Applicability of the two-thirds rule; People v Floyd

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant-Brown’s convictions of AWIM, intentional discharge of a firearm from a vehicle, and felony-firearm as an aider and abettor. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motions for separate trials. The court also rejected defendant-West’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his request for a self-defense jury instruction as to the intentional discharge of a firearm from a vehicle charge. Finally, they were not entitled to sentencing relief pursuant to the two-thirds rule. Defendants are brothers. The court concluded that while Brown did not fire a gun at victims-AB and LB, “the jury heard testimony indicating that he threatened to kill [AB], who antagonized West, then drove West to where [AB] was, and handled his car in a way that enabled West to fire a weapon multiple times at [AB] through the sunroof. The jury could reasonably infer from the brothers’ close association, from Brown’s facilitation of West’s shooting at [AB], including stopping in front of [LB’s] house after the shooting began, and from Brown’s attempt after the shooting to help West avoid detection, that he aided and abetted in an assault on [AB] with an intent to kill him.” As to the intentional discharge of a firearm from a vehicle conviction, while Brown asserted he did not know West had a gun, the jury found this testimony not credible. In addition, even if he did not know initially that West had a gun, “the jury heard testimony from which it might reasonably infer that Brown drove in a manner that enabled West to shoot multiple times at [AB], and even stopped in front of [LB’s] house after the shooting began.” If believed, this testimony was sufficient to show “that, after he discovered West had a gun, Brown nevertheless took measures to assist West in his intentional discharge of the firearm from the vehicle.” The evidence was also sufficient to support his felony-firearm conviction. The court further held that severance was not warranted because their defenses were not mutually exclusive. As to sentencing, although “at first blush, a sentence of 35 to 50 years appears to violate the Tanner rule,” the court noted that in Floyd the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the two-thirds rule “does not apply to sentences where the statutory maximum is ‘life or any term of years.’” Affirmed.