Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions of involuntary manslaughter & felony-firearm; MCL 750.329; People v Smith; People v Bass; Sentencing; MCL 769.34(10); Presumptive proportionality of a within-guidelines sentence; Cruel & unusual punishment

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s involuntary manslaughter and felony-firearm convictions, and that his within-guidelines sentence for manslaughter was reasonable and not cruel or unusual punishment. The victim (B) “died from a gunshot wound to the head. There was no evidence presented that suggested there was a lawful justification or excuse for defendant shooting” her. Rather, he asserted there was a reasonable doubt “whether he intentionally pointed the firearm at” B. The court disagreed. “The prosecution established that defendant and [B] were alone together when the firearm was discharged. The firearm was registered to defendant. [B’s] gunshot wound was above her ear on the right side of her head.” The court noted that the fact the medical examiner “could not determine whether the trigger was pulled intentionally or accidentally is not relevant; involuntary manslaughter does not require that defendant intentionally pulled the trigger, only that defendant intentionally pointed the firearm at the victim.” It further concluded that his “act of holding the gun flush against [B’s] head establishes that he intentionally pointed it at” her. In addition, no evidence was presented suggesting that she was suicidal. As the court concluded “it was defendant who possessed the firearm” and that he committed the felony of involuntary manslaughter, there was also sufficient evidence to support his felony-firearm conviction. He next contended he was entitled to a reasonableness review of his within-guidelines 29-month minimum sentence for the manslaughter conviction, and that it was cruel and unusual. The court again disagreed, noting that his minimum guidelines range for the conviction was 29 to 57 months. Thus, his minimum sentence was at the bottom of the range and presumptively proportionate. He did not claim that the trial court made a guidelines scoring error or relied on inaccurate information. Instead, he argued “his age and the fact he will spend at least 29 months in prison away from his family and children are circumstances that make the sentence imposed disproportionate; neither fact, however, is an unusual circumstance, nor a circumstance that renders his sentence disproportionate.” As to his cruel and unusual punishment claim, “a proportionate sentence is not cruel or unusual.” Affirmed.