Great weight of the evidence challenges to felony murder, armed robbery, FIP, & felony-firearm convictions; Credibility; Prosecutorial error; Vouching; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a futile objection; Exclusion of a witness’s prior conviction; MRE 609(a); People v Snyder; People v Parcha

The court held that defendant’s felony murder, armed robbery, FIP, and felony-firearm convictions were not against the great weight of the evidence. It also rejected his prosecutorial error and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Further, it concluded he was not entitled to relief based on the exclusion of a witness’s prior conviction from evidence. As to his great weight of the evidence claim, he essentially asked the court to find that his version of events was more credible than the prosecution’s evidence. But conflicting “‘testimony, even when impeached to some extent, is an insufficient ground for granting a new trial.’” Defendant asserted that witness-W’s “testimony was ‘inherently incredible’ because [W]: (1) was the person responsible for stopping the DVR recording before the shooting, (2) hid the cameras and DVR before the police arrived, and (3) was seen pacing at the scene after officers arrived. First, there was no evidence that [W] was the person who stopped the recording before the shooting. In fact, [W] was in the video frame when the cameras cut out, and defendant was not. Second, [W] testified that he did not take the cameras down or move the DVR until after the shooting occurred, and he only moved them at that point because he was afraid that someone would return for the equipment.” As to the pacing, “that behavior does not appear to be particularly suspicious considering that the evening was described as cold and snowy, and [W] had just witnessed the murder of a person who was ‘just like family’ to him.” The court found it “worth noting that defendant fled the scene, but” W flagged down a police officer and another witness (C) “called emergency services and rendered aid to the victim. And even though [W] and [C] were hesitant to testify, their testimonies substantially corroborated each other. Accordingly, despite the presence of conflicting testimony in this case, the evidence did not preponderate so heavily against the jury’s verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow the verdict to stand.” The court also found that the prosecution did not improperly vouch for W’s and C’s testimonies in closing argument. As to the exclusion of W’s prior conviction, defendant could not show prejudice in any event given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Affirmed.