Sufficiency of the evidence for first-degree premeditated murder convictions; Identity; People v Davis; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); MRE 403; A defendant’s prior statement; Medical examiner’s (ME) manner-of-death testimony; People v McFarlane; Whether the testimony invaded the jury’s province; People v Doan; People v Drossart

The court held that (1) there was sufficient evidence of identification to support defendant’s first-degree murder conviction; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other acts evidence, including his threats to the victim and photos of a gun; and (3) the ME’s manner-of-death testimony did not invade the jury’s province. He was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, AWIM, and felony-firearm. The court found that, if believed by the jury, a witness’s “eyewitness identification of defendant as the shooter alone was sufficient to prove identity. Moreover, that evidence was coupled with the circumstantial evidence of a feud between defendant and the victim, defendant’s occupancy of the apartment in the near vicinity of the victim’s shooting, defendant’s possession of a gun that was similar to the shooter’s weapon, and [his] departure from the apartment building within minutes of the shooting. Together, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish defendant’s identity” as the perpetrator. As to the other acts evidence, the court concluded that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the communications between defendant and the victim.” It noted that, to the extent he challenged “his own statements threatening the victim, a prior statement by a defendant ‘does not constitute a prior bad acting coming under MRE 404(b) because it is just that, a prior statement and not a prior bad act.’” And his prior statements threatening “to hurt or assault the victim for having a relationship with defendant’s aunt and lying to defendant about it are clearly relevant to his state of mind and motive. Further, the probative value of [his] threats directed at the victim was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. To the extent that [his] messages mentioned assaulting another, such evidence fell within the ambit of MRE 404(b); however, any error in its admission was harmless.” As to the messages, photos, and video of the 9-millimeter gun, the court found that they showed he “acquired the potential means to commit the shooting eleven days before it occurred.” Finally, it held that he did not show plain error as to the manner-of-death testimony. The ME simply “opined that a homicide occurred, i.e., a killing of the victim.” Affirmed.