Sufficiency of the evidence; AWIM; Intent to kill; Self-defense; Motion for mistrial; Detective’s testimony

The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of AWIM and to show “a lack of self-defense, given the evidence presented and the jury’s credibility” determinations, and “a lack of prejudice resulting from the detective’s testimony.” Also, he was “not entitled to a mistrial based on the detective’s testimony where the phone call was played for the jury and defendant was not prejudiced by the testimony.” He argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove his intent to kill. “The victim testified that defendant had threatened him and had appeared at the victim’s house with a ‘machine gun’ about a week before the shooting. Both the victim and the victim’s friend testified that defendant appeared and pointed a gun at the victim. The victim testified that defendant shot him, and the jury heard defendant admit to shooting the victim during his police interview. Defendant pointing a gun at the victim and pulling the trigger is evidence of intent to kill, irrespective of whether anyone died.” Although he questioned “this testimony and the credibility of witnesses, ‘it is the role of the jury, not this Court, to determine the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses.’” The court held that “making credibility choices in support of the jury’s verdict and viewing in a light most favorable to the prosecution, defendant’s intent to kill could be reasonably inferred from the evidence.” As for his self-defense argument, witness “testimony and the bullet hole in the back of the victim’s sweater both indicated that the victim was shot in the back. By shooting the victim in the back, a jury could infer that defendant had no reasonable belief of imminent deadly force being used against him.” Further, the court noted that “the victim and the victim’s friend testified that defendant approached the victim with a gun drawn and pointed at the victim. From this, the jury could infer that defendant was the initial aggressor, and as an initial aggressor, defendant generally cannot claim self-defense.” The court found that the “prosecutor met the burden for disproving defendant’s self-defense claim.” Thus, the jury could have found that the elements for AWIM were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Affirmed.