Sufficiency of the evidence for an AWIM conviction; Self-defense; The Self-Defense Act; MCL 780.972(2)

The court concluded that, based on the record, the trial court’s rejection of defendant’s claim of self-defense in his bench trial was not clearly erroneous. He was convicted of AWIM and felony-firearm. His appellate counsel argued there was insufficient evidence to sustain his AWIM conviction because the prosecution did not “prove beyond a reasonable doubt defendant’s actions were not in self-defense.” Defendant asserted that he acted in self-defense because the victim (K), “who was known to be violent, was in possession of a gun and intent on harming” him. Defendant contended “he tried to leave the altercation, and after having to return, tried again to extricate himself by going inside the house. When” the property owner (D) forced him outside, he asserted “the impending dangerous confrontation placed him in fear for his life.” But the court concluded the record contained “sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that [he] did not have an honest or reasonable fear of imminent harm when he shot [K]. When defendant returned to the scene with a shotgun,” K and a woman had left D’s “property and were across the street, dissipating any imminent threat of harm.” He contended K “was armed, and while he and [K] offered contradictory versions of events, all other testimony indicated [K] was never in possession of a weapon.” The court noted that it “‘is for the trier of fact, not the appellate court, to determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and to determine the weight to be accorded those inferences.’” In this case, the “trial court explained it gave the most weight to [D’s] testimony and found [K] did not have a weapon when defendant shot him.” The court noted that it “defers to the trial court’s assessment of the evidence.” Affirmed.