Sufficiency of the evidence for an AWIGBH conviction; Self-defense; The Self-Defense Act; MCL 780.972(1)(a); People v Guajardo; People v Leffew

Holding that the prosecution offered “sufficient evidence to rebut defendant’s self-defense claim[,]” the court rejected his argument that there was insufficient evidence to support his AWIGBH conviction. It noted that he did “not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the assault or his intent to do great bodily harm.” He only contended that the prosecution did not disprove his self-defense theory. He asserted he acted in self-defense because the victim (A) “initially pushed him while the two men were inside” a delivery truck. After calling their employer “to report the assault, defendant testified that [A] used a racial slur against him and ‘kind of’ moved his hand. Surveillance video indicated that defendant struck [A] repeatedly with his cell phone.” In defendant’s bench trial, the “trial court found that even if [A] initially pushed defendant inside the truck, the time period between that assault and defendant’s attack was too attenuated to justify” his actions. The court agreed. In Leffew, the Michigan Supreme Court recently “noted that the factfinder should ‘consider how the excitement of the moment affected the choice [the defendant] made.’” And in Guajardo, the court “likewise noted ‘threats of future harm do not constitute imminent danger for purposes of self-defense.’ Taken together, these cases bely defendant’s argument that he was justified in attacking [A]. Further, any conflicts in evidence must be resolved in the prosecution’s favor.” The court added that, “even if that were not the case, defendant waited several minutes before confronting [A]. By that point, [A] ceased being an imminent threat, and defendant could not have reasonably acted in self-defense by striking him with the cell phone.” Affirmed.