Sufficiency of the evidence; First-degree premeditated murder; MCL 750.316(1)(a); Self-defense; Waiver of right to counsel; People v Anderson; MCR 6.005(D) & (E); Judicial misconduct; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)

Holding that there were no errors warranting reversal, the court affirmed. Defendant-Ball was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to life without the possibility of parole. It found “that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ball was not acting in self-defense[.]” At the start, “the prosecution presented documentary evidence and witness testimony disputing Ball’s claim that [victim-A] violently assaulted him with a pistol in” 11/21. And the surveillance footage allowed “for a reasonable inference that Ball’s sudden, vicious assault of [A] was unprovoked.” That inference was “corroborated by witness testimony describing [A] as happy, smiling, and dancing.” It was “also corroborated by witness testimony describing Ball striking [A] repeatedly with a knife while [A] was unable to fight back and was holding on to Ball in order to keep himself upright. Ball’s testimony that he was scared is contradicted by people who knew him, testifying that he did not seem scared, he seemed ‘locked in’ and ‘focused.’ And, rather than rely upon Ball’s testimony that he only drew the knife in the off-camera area after being punched by a witness, the jury was free to rely on testimony that he had the knife from the beginning of his assault and that [A] was unarmed. Ball’s testimony that he discarded the knife after the assault is corroborated because the police located the knife. And his testimony that [A] had some sort of weapon was refuted by the fact that, unlike Ball, [A] was searched for weapons when he entered the club.” Next, the prosecution introduced other acts “evidence which refuted Ball’s claim that he was afraid that if he got into a fight he could die as a result of his skull having been fractured in” 11/21. Finally, his “overall credibility was weakened because the prosecution was able to present testimony showing how Ball’s version of events kept morphing to better suit the evidence uncovered by the police.” Next, as to Ball’s waiver of right to counsel claim, the court held that “the trial court substantially complied with the requirements in Anderson and MCR 6.005(D)” at the 10/24/23 hearing. As a result, his initial “waiver of counsel was valid and he [was] not entitled to automatic reversal. Further, at each subsequent proceeding, the trial court substantially complied with MCR 6.005(E), and, to the extent that it did not, Ball has not established prejudice as a result of the court’s failure.” Finally, contrary to his “argument on appeal, his comments on the sixth day of trial did not render his request to represent himself ambiguous because he stated that he unequivocally wanted to represent himself in light of his extreme distrust of his standby lawyer.”