Right to a fair trial; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v Dobek; Opening statement; The bounds of a prosecutor’s statements; Comparing People v Johnson; Prejudice; Curative instruction; Photographic evidence; People v Brown; Relevance; MRE 401 & 402; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; Evidence of a defendant’s possession of a weapon; People v Hall; Lay witness opinion testimony; MRE 701; People v Fomby; Sentencing; Judgment of sentence (JOS)

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions, but remanded solely for the ministerial task of correcting the typographical error in the JOS. He was convicted of first-degree murder and felony-firearm for murdering the two victims at an apartment complex. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the prosecutor erred when he referred to the murders as a “hit” during his opening statement. “Even if we were to conclude that there was no evidence of a ‘hit,’ the evidence overwhelmingly supported defendant’s convictions.” In addition, “the prosecution’s characterization of the murders as a ‘hit’ could reasonably be viewed as its way of showing premeditation, since this element is a ‘subjective factor[] [which is] usually incapable of direct proof absent an admission or confession by the defendant.’” Further, even “if the word was somehow prejudicial, this prejudice was cured by the trial court’s instructions.” The court also rejected his claim that the prosecutor erred when he improperly implied that the key to the stolen vehicle (a Dodge Charger) defendant used to run from the police was among his personal belongings when he was arrested. It noted that because an adequate foundation was laid, “the prosecutor did not err when he questioned defendant about the” key, and he was not prejudiced by it. The court next rejected his contention that the trial court erred when it admitted a photograph of him holding a gun found on one of the victim’s phones. “[T]he probative value of the gun in the photograph was established because of its similarity to the one discovered in the crashed Charger. [Its] unique color scheme justified ‘an inference of the likelihood or possibility of its having been used,’ in the murders. This inference is further supported by the fact that the photograph of defendant holding the gun was sent to [the] cell phone days before her murder.” While it was prejudicial, “‘any prejudicial effect [was] outweighed by the clear probative value of the evidence.’” Finally, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred when it allowed the detective to narrate a surveillance video and identify “a Charger” at the scene where the murder took place. Because the “testimony ‘was (1) rationally based [the detective’s] own perception of the video and (2) helpful for the jury to determine’ whether the vehicle depicted was a Charger,” it was admissible under MRE 701. Moreover, “evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming.”