Second-degree murder; Great weight of the evidence; The Self–Defense Act; MCL 780.972(1)(a); First-time identification of defendant at trial; Due process; People v Posey; Claim the prosecution failed to adequately investigate; Applicability of Brady v Maryland; Distinction between the failure to disclose evidence & the failure to develop it; People v Coy; Prosecutorial error; Closing argument; Plain error; Prejudice

The court held that defendant’s second-degree murder conviction was not against the great weight of the evidence and that he was not entitled to relief based on a witness’s (W) “first-time identification of him at trial as a shooter” in the incident. Further, his “right to a fair trial was not violated by the prosecution’s alleged failure to adequately investigate the shooting.” Finally, while the court found that an isolated comment by the prosecutor during closing argument was plain error, defendant was not entitled to reversal because he failed to establish prejudice. Thus, it affirmed his convictions of second-degree murder and felony-firearm. He was with his codefendant (M) when M “fired a warning shot into the air” as a group of people approached. Defendant “fired at the group,” fatally striking the victim (F) from behind. Defendant asserted that “the lack of ballistic evidence rendered his conviction against the great weight of the evidence because it was impossible for the jury to infer that his actions caused (F’s) death. However, the bulk of the evidence was adequate to prove causation.” A witness (T) who was in the approaching group “stated that he fired back at defendant and [M] after seeing muzzle flashes. [W] confirmed that he heard gunshots coming from” the direction of defendant and M. The medical examiner confirmed that F “was hit from behind, suggesting that he was running away from [M] and defendant.” In addition, a detective “noted there were casings from three calibers recovered from the scene. [M] fired into the air and [T] fired at [M] and defendant, not toward [F]. Thus, although circumstantial, the jury could infer based on this testimony that the two bullets that hit [F’s] back and head originated from defendant’s gun.” As to his self-defense claim, the trial court instructed the jury on “self-defense, and the jury rejected” the defense. The record indicated “that this rejection was not against the great weight of the evidence[.]” The court found that “the trial court likely committed plain error by allowing [W] to identify defendant as a shooter at trial because, under Posey, such a first-time-in-court identification procedure generally is inadmissible without a consideration of reliability factors.” But the court agreed with the prosecution that there was “no prejudice to defendant. The surveillance video showed [him] as a shooter” and his self-defense theory “was an admission that he was a shooter.”