Sufficiency of the evidence for FIP & felony-firearm convictions; Possession; People v Johnson; Parker v Renico (6th Cir); Error in the information; MCL 767.76; Harmless error review; MCR 6.112(G); Prejudice; People v Waclawski; Denial of motion for a mistrial; Testimony about prison photos of defendant; Effect of a stipulation as to the FIP charge; People v McDonald; Correction of the judgment of sentence (JOS)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence of possession to support defendant’s FIP and felony-firearm convictions. Further, he was not entitled to have his convictions vacated based on an alleged error in the felony information, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial due to a brief statement about prison photos of him. As to his sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the court concluded that, under Johnson, viewed “in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could find that defendant had constructive possession of, at a minimum, the Draco found in the basement bedroom. The Draco was found in the room where [he] frequently stayed, under a board atop the bed platform.” A witness (R) testified that she purchased that gun “and brought it into the house that same day, and that she placed it on top of what she termed the ‘wooden platform’ in the basement bedroom.” But another witness (H) testified that R waited outside the “house that afternoon, but did not go inside. And” the court noted that, contrary to R’s statement about where she placed the Draco, it “was recovered underneath” the platform. Based on this record, a jury could credit H’s “testimony and conclude that it was defendant who brought the Draco into the house and placed it underneath the bed frame. Or it could” choose to credit R’s testimony “and conclude that defendant had moved the Draco and placed it under the board. On these facts, sufficient evidence was presented by the prosecution to enable a rational jury to conclude defendant had at least some indicia of control over the Draco.” Further, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for the jury to infer that he knew of another gun’s location in the house “and had reasonable access to it.” All that was needed to support his FIP conviction was sufficient evidence that he “possessed a gun, not every gun.” As to his motion for a mistrial, the statement about the prison photos was unresponsive, “undetailed, and gave no indication as to why defendant had previously been incarcerated.” The court added that “any prejudice was mitigated because defendant stipulated to having previously been convicted of a felony.” He did not show any “prejudice from the challenged testimony[.]” Affirmed bur remanded for correction of the JOS as to his sentence.