Sufficiency of the evidence for a first-degree premeditated murder conviction; Premeditation; People v Oros; People v Walker; Self-defense; Search of defendant’s Facebook account; Search warrant’s validity; Probable cause; Distinguishing United States v Brown (6th Cir); Particularity requirement; People v Hughes; People v Mahdi

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict convicting defendant of first-degree premeditated murder. It also found that he was not entitled to relief based on his challenges to the search warrant for his Facebook account because even if the particularity requirement was not met, he could not establish prejudice given the other evidence against him. It concluded the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that “the elements of first-degree premeditated murder were established beyond a reasonable doubt and that the prosecution disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Gas station surveillance videos, a witness’s testimony, “and statements made by defendant, showed defendant and the victim initially confronted each other when defendant was pulling out of the gas station. The victim was upset and yelled at defendant, who proceeded to exit the” vehicle he was in. After defendant got back inside his vehicle, the victim exited the vehicle he was in, “when a ‘couple of F-bombs’ were exchanged. The evidence showed that after defendant exited the gas station, he promptly returned to the parking lot using another driveway. [He] pulled to the ‘end pump to clear [his] head for a minute’ and considered his confrontation with the victim to be ‘over,’ maintaining he was not ‘thinking about [the victim].’ Defendant stated he returned to ‘warn’ the staff at the gas station about the victim and call the police. However, sometime after the first encounter, [he] took the revolver out of his vehicle’s center console and placed it in his pocket.” The court found no merit in his “contention that the victim was the aggressor during the second confrontation . . . . The evidence presented showed that defendant initiated the second confrontation by (1) electing to return to the gas station after having left and then (2) aiming the revolver at the victim.” Importantly, he “had the opportunity to avoid further confrontation with the victim by, for example, driving away and not returning to the gas station. Further, there was no evidence the victim had a gun or that defendant received any injuries. Quite simply, there was no evidence justifying the use of deadly force in self-defense by defendant.” As to his illegal search claim, even without the Facebook evidence, the “surveillance videos, the revolver recovered at the scene, and the bullets retrieved from the victim, provided ample evidence for the jury to convict” him. Affirmed.