Introduction of a defendant’s inculpatory statements; The corpus delicti rule; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a futile objection; Right to present a defense; Right to a properly instructed jury; People v Ogilvie; Jury instructions; People v McKinney; Self-defense & defense-of-others jury instructions; Double jeopardy; FIP & felony-firearm convictions; People v Dillard; People v Mitchell; Sentencing; Proportionality of an above-guidelines sentence; People v Dixon-Bey; People v Lampe

The court held that: 1) the corpus delicti of defendant’s offense was established before his inculpatory statements were introduced; 2) he was not entitled to jury instructions on self-defense and defense-of-others; 3) double jeopardy was not violated; and 4) his above-guidelines sentence was not disproportionate. Defendant and his son, JS, arranged a meeting with the victim in order to exchange defendant’s gun and cash for a gun the victim was offering for sale. The exchange went wrong, JS was shot, and defendant returned fire, killing the victim. He was convicted of FIP and felony-firearm and sentenced to consecutive terms of 2 to 7½ years for the former and 2 years for the latter. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred when it admitted his statements to the police officer before the prosecution established the corpus delicti of the offense. The evidence “established the occurrence of a crime before the trial court admitted” the statements. It “showed that the police arrived on the scene in response to a shooting. They observed [the victim] lying on the ground, bleeding and unresponsive. Two handguns were on the ground nearby. In addition, JS was holding his face and bleeding profusely from his face.” As such, “the evidence showed that a crime occurred.” The court noted it “was not necessary that the evidence, apart from” defendant’s statements, establish his guilt. It also rejected his claim that he was entitled to a self-defense and defense-of-others jury instruction as to the FIP charge and that he was denied his rights to present a defense and to a properly instructed jury when the trial court denied his requested instruction. It found the “requested jury instruction was not consistent with the evidence and material to the theory of prosecution[.]” The court next rejected his contention that his convictions violated his double jeopardy protections, noting it was bound to follow Mitchell. Finally, it rejected his argument that his above-guidelines sentence was disproportionate. “Unlike a ‘garden variety’ case, in this case [defendant] used his child to communicate with another child for the purpose of buying and selling firearms. The [trial] court described [his] conduct as ‘abhorrent.’” Thus, contrary to his claim, “the trial court explained why it believed a departure would result in a more proportionate sentence, and it explained the extent of the departure imposed.” Affirmed.