Jurisdiction; Effect of failure to sign the information; MCL 767.40; MCR 6.112(D) & (H); People v Thomas; Harmless error; MCL 769.26; MCR 6.112(G); United States v Mechanik; Distinguishing In re Bail Bond Forfeiture; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v Fyda; Jury instructions; Legal insanity & involuntary intoxication; M Crim JI 7.10(3) & (4); MCL 768.21a(1); People v Caulley; People v Conrad; Principle that a person is not considered legally insane solely on the basis of being under the influence of voluntarily consumed alcohol; MCL 768.21a(2); Distinguishing People v Wilkins

The court held that defendant was not entitled to reversal of his conviction on the basis of the prosecution’s failure to sign the information. It also held that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court did not err by denying his request to instruct the jury on involuntary intoxication and insanity. He was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, AWIM, UDAA, felonious assault, and felony-firearm for murdering his friend, L, shooting at a second victim, K, and unlawfully driving away L’s vehicle. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that his case should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because the prosecution failed to sign the information, noting that “although the prosecution undoubtedly erred by failing to sign the information, that failure did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction when an arraignment was held, and defendant was aware of the charges that he faced.” In addition, he “received thorough notice of the charges that he faced and has not established that he was prejudiced by the lack of a signed information.” The court also rejected his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on the basis of defense counsel’s failure to object to the unsigned information, finding he failed to show defense counsel’s performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. Finally, the court rejected his contention that the trial court erred by denying his request to instruct the jury on involuntary intoxication and insanity. “Although it may be unexplained and surprising that defendant shot at [K] and fatally shot [L], there was no evidence that [he] was anything other than voluntarily intoxicated and that he should not have reasonably known that he would become intoxicated or impaired.” And, again, any error was not outcome-determinative. Affirmed.