Second-degree murder; Aiding & abetting; People v Robinson; Scoring of OVs 1 & 2 in multiple-offender cases; People v Ventour; MCL 777.32(1)(d) & (2); Entitlement to resentencing; Great weight of the evidence; Due process; Mens rea; The natural & probable-consequences doctrine

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction of second-degree murder on an aiding and abetting theory, and that the conviction was not against the great weight of the evidence. In light of Robinson, it also rejected his claim that his conviction “based on the natural and probable consequences of his actions” violated due process. But it concluded that he was entitled to resentencing because 5 points were erroneously scored for OV 2. The court found the evidence established that his codefendant (R) committed second-degree murder by shooting the victim (J) multiple times. Three witnesses identified R as one of the perpetrators, “and the reasonable inference drawn from defendant’s statements was that [R] was the shooter. This” met the requirement that the crime “‘was committed by the defendant or some other person[.]’” While the parties indicated R was “acquitted of any murder charges, ‘the conviction of a principal is not necessary for the conviction of a party aiding and abetting.’” The evidence was also “sufficient to establish that defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commission of the crime.” He admitted he gave R “his gun in the days leading up to the murder.” While R gave him other reasoning for wanting it, “defendant never took it back. Rather, [he] drove [R] to the scene of the crime, even after learning” where they were going and knowing that R intended to confront J “while armed. When they arrived at the apartment complex, defendant parked where [R] directed.” He placed a phone call when R told him to, exited the car, and followed R “to the apartment. Eyewitnesses testified that defendant and [R] were wearing ski masks; defendant told the police he had the hood of his sweatshirt on and pulled up and tied to cover his face.” He drove R away after the shooting, hid his car “in his garage, reported his gun stolen, and changed his phone number.” In addition, a rational fact-finder could conclude that he “either intended to murder [J] or had knowledge that [R] acted with the requisite malice.” But given that there was no evidence he “possessed or used a pistol” during the crime, and because R “was acquitted of murder and not assessed points for OV 2, defendant could not be assessed points in a multiple-offender situation under MCL 777.32(2).” His murder conviction was affirmed but his sentence was vacated. Remanded for resentencing.