Sufficiency of the evidence; AWIGBH; Intent; Jury instruction on the offense of aggravated assault as a lesser included offense; Sentencing; Scoring of 25 points for OV 3

Concluding that 1) there was evidence to support defendant’s AWIGBH conviction, 2) his jury instruction claim failed, and 3) the trial court properly assessed 25 points for OV 3, the court affirmed. He was convicted of AWIGBH and assault and battery. He was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to 8 to 20 years for AWIGBH and 3 months for assault and battery. Defendant argued, among other things, “that the evidence only demonstrated that he possessed the intent to inflict an aggravated injury, which was insufficient to establish that he intended to inflict great bodily harm.” The court noted that multiple “witnesses described defendant as aggressive, intimidating, and irate.” The director of the half-way house where defendant was then a resident (T) “described defendant as loud, aggressive, and intimidating, stating: ‘[I]t was obvious due to the aggressive nature of [defendant] that he was looking to engage with someone.’” The case manager, G, echoed T’s concern. “He described defendant as threatening and was worried defendant would attack him during their argument. [G] stated defendant punched the victim hard with a closed fist in rapid succession. [G] testified that it was apparent defendant was preparing to strike the victim a third time when” T intervened. T “explained that he intervened quickly because it was evident that the situation was escalating.” Also, T and G “testified that the victim did not have his hands raised and never fought back.” Dr. L “explained that only ‘severe force’ could cause the ‘blowout fracture’ that the victim suffered. Defendant’s challenges, including what inferences could be drawn from the evidence, are related to the weight and credibility of the evidence, which were issues for the jury to resolve.” The court noted that the “jury was free to accept or reject the theory of either party in light of the evidence presented at trial, and we will not interfere with the jury’s role of determining issues of weight and credibility.” Further, the court noted that “we are required to resolve all conflicts in the evidence—whether direct or circumstantial—in favor of the prosecution[.]” Applying these standards, it concluded that “there was sufficient evidence to enable the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had the specific intent to do great bodily harm.”