Brady disclosure obligations; Brady v Maryland; Sufficiency of evidence; Inconsistent verdicts; MCL 750.227b; People v Putman; Double jeopardy; Multiple punishments; MCL 750.529; People v Miller

The court held that defendant was not entitled to relief on his Brady and sufficiency challenges but that his conviction for assault and battery violated double jeopardy, so it vacated that conviction, affirmed the remaining convictions, and remanded for correction of the judgment. Defendant and an acquaintance went to buy marijuana from the victim, and defendant pulled a gun, demanded the marijuana, and shot the victim twice, leading to convictions of armed robbery, assault and battery, and felony-firearm. The trial court denied his post-trial Brady motion based on a Facebook exchange in which the victim initially wrote that the acquaintance shot him but seconds later clarified that someone in the car with her shot him. On appeal, the court held that, viewed as a whole, the exchange was not material Brady evidence because it largely corroborated the trial testimony, explaining that “the Facebook conversation overall corroborates trial testimony about the shooting, there is no reasonable probability that its disclosure to the defense would have affected the outcome of the case, and its absence from trial does not undermine confidence in the trial verdict.” Addressing sufficiency, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the split felony-firearm verdicts were inconsistent or showed a failure of proof, emphasizing that the second felony-firearm count could not stand once the jury reduced the underlying assault charge to a misdemeanor and that “it was not inconsistent for the jury to convict on the first felony-firearm count while acquitting on the second, and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions.” Finally, applying the abstract legal elements test, the court concluded that assault and battery is a lesser offense inherent in armed robbery because the robbery statute requires an assault, stating that “it is impossible to commit armed robbery without also committing assault and battery, and it is not the case that each offense has an element that the other does not,” so the remedy was to vacate the lower assault and battery conviction and leave the higher armed robbery conviction in place.