Motion for a directed verdict & challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on an AWIGBH charge; Self-defense; Prosecutorial misconduct; Questioning defendant’s silence in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; Voir dire; Jury instructions; “Imminent”; Carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent (CDWUI)

The court held that that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s AWIGBH conviction and rebut his self-defense claim, and the trial court did not err by denying the motion for a directed verdict. Also, his prosecutorial misconduct claim failed. Further, the trial court did not err by refusing to ask the prospective jurors a proposed question he submitted where it was not necessary to uncover potential bias. Finally, the additional instruction given by the trial court as to the meaning of “imminent” did not require reversal. He was convicted of AWIGBH, felonious assault, CDWUI, FIP and felony-firearm. He was the manager of the restaurant where the incident occurred. Defendant did not dispute that there was sufficient evidence to establish the elements of AWIGBH beyond a reasonable doubt. It was clear that an assault occurred, and the multiple shots he fired in victim-L’s “direction without warning allowed the jury to reasonably infer an intent to do great bodily harm.” But he argued that the prosecution failed to rebut his claim of self-defense. The evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that his actions were “not necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself" or another individual. At trial, he was “adamant that he acted to protect the restaurant’s customers. Defendant specifically testified that he was concerned about customers going through the restaurant’s drive-thru.” However, at the time he shot L, “no customers were present in the drive-thru or in the rear parking lot where the shooting occurred. There were a couple customers within the restaurant, but” L was not near them. Further, “the events both inside and outside of the restaurant suggest that defendant was acting out of anger toward [L] rather than a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent harm to others.” Thus, based on the prosecution’s proofs, the jury reasonably determined that “defendant and the restaurant’s customers were not faced with imminent death or great bodily harm.” Affirmed.