Sufficiency of the evidence for first-degree murder, second-degree murder, & AWIM convictions; Self-defense; MCL 780.971 & 972; People v Dupree; Premeditation; People v Smith

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to disprove defendant’s self-defense claim and to support his convictions. He was convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, AWIM, FIP, and felony-firearm for shooting and killing two victims (J and B) and wounding a third during an altercation at a home. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions because the prosecution failed to prove he did not act in self-defense, and failed to establish premeditation as to B. First, the “evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that [defendant] (1) was the aggressor, (2) did not honestly and reasonably believe deadly force was immediately necessary, and (3) was not under threat of serious bodily injury.” Second, as to premeditation, sufficient evidence contradicted defendant’s “testimony and preferred narrative.” There was evidence he “started the altercation, and pulled the gun from his sweatshirt pocket. [B] was not blocking the exit, nor did he have a gun.” Defendant shot B “in the back three times as he was running away,” and assuming he “initially began shooting in reaction to [J], who ‘walked up in [defendant’s] face,’ and attempted to grab him by the shirt collar, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, [defendant] eliminated the immediate threat when [J] fell to the ground. Rather than retreat, he continued to shoot at [B], who was fleeing with his back turned.” Viewed in the “light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that” defendant’s murder of B was premeditated. Affirmed.