Right against self-incrimination; People v Dennis; Due process right to a fair trial; Sufficiency of the evidence; First-degree felony murder; Armed robbery

Concluding that (1) “defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his due process right to a fair trial” were not violated and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s first-degree felony murder conviction, the court affirmed. He first argued “that he was deprived of a fair trial and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when the prosecution elicited testimony from Detective [L] at trial that defendant ‘didn’t want to talk’ when [L] met with defendant at the police station.” The court assumed “without deciding that defendant had been Mirandized and was ‘in custody’ at the time in question, thereby triggering Fifth Amendment protections.” Applying the Dennis factors here, the court first found that L’s testimony as to “defendant’s silence was short, not mentioned again by the prosecution, and defense counsel’s objection was made outside the jury’s presence.” Second, the prosecution did not attempt to use his “silence against him on cross-examination or in argument.” Third, it found “the trial court provided a strong curative instruction, which was substantively identical to the instruction in Dennis that was held to cure the error in that case.” Fourth, although defendant did testify, the record showed “that the prosecution did not refer to defendant’s silence on cross-examination.” Given these facts, the court was “not persuaded that the prosecution’s fleeting reference to defendant’s silence during its examination of [L] violated defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his due process right to a fair trial.” Defendant next argued “that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence for a jury to convict him of first-degree felony murder based on an underlying felony of larceny.” The prosecution alleged that he “committed armed robbery, enumerated in MCL 750.316(1)(b), under an aiding-and-abetting theory.” The court concluded “that it was reasonable for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed armed robbery under an aiding-and-abetting theory. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence demonstrated that” defendant’s brother, codefendant-S “committed armed robbery by carrying something from [victim-TS’s] vehicle, reasonably inferred to be the marijuana for the transaction, when he ran back to defendant’s vehicle after both he and defendant shot [TS], in the thigh and head, respectively.” The evidence also indicated “that defendant actively assisted and participated in the armed robbery by shooting [TS] and driving the getaway vehicle.” The court found that in “light of the video footage showing that defendant shot [TS] in the head multiple times after running up to him while [TS] tried to flee his vehicle, it was reasonable for the jury to discredit defendant’s self-defense argument and find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to, and did, shoot and kill [TS] during the commission of an armed robbery with” S.