Admissibility of character evidence; Evidence of a victim’s aggressive character where self-defense is an issue; MRE 404(a)(2); MRE 405; People v Wright; Sufficiency of the evidence; Self-defense; People v Dupree; Voluntary-manslaughter instruction; Self-defense instruction only as to a murder charge & not firearm-related charges; Duress instruction as to CCW; Right to present a defense

The court held that: 1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding some of the victim’s messages as inadmissible character evidence, 2) the evidence was sufficient to prove defendant did not shoot the victim in self-defense, 3) the trial court did not err as to the jury instructions, and (4) the trial court did not deprive him of his right to present a defense. He was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, FIP of a firearm, FIP of ammunition, CCW, and felony-firearm, arising out of a fatal shooting. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding as improper character evidence several of the victim’s text messages to other individuals. It noted the messages were “remote in time from the shooting and devoid of any clear references to defendant. Meanwhile, the trial court admitted the messages that occurred on the day of the shooting, in which the victim sent a picture of the back of defendant’s car and indicated that he wished he had a gun because he would ‘kill [defendant] right now’—even though those messages were never communicated to defendant. This ruling comported with Wright, and” there was no abuse of discretion. The court also rejected his claim that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense when he shot the victim. Defendant stressed his version of the events, “but the jury clearly did not find that version credible, and” the court saw no basis to second-guess its assessment. “[A] reasonable jury could have readily concluded that, when he shot and killed the victim, defendant did not honestly and reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm such that shooting the victim was immediately necessary. The evidence was more than sufficient to disprove [his] self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt, and we see no merit in [his] arguments otherwise.” The court next rejected his contention that the trial court committed several instructional errors, finding it did not abuse its discretion by: 1) determining that a voluntary-manslaughter instruction was inapplicable to the facts, 2) determining that a self-defense instruction was unwarranted, or 3) declining to provide a duress instruction on his CCW offense. Finally, the trial court’s exclusion of the victim’s messages and refusal to provide defendant’s requested instructions did not deprive him of his right to present a defense. Affirmed.