Police witness testimony; Lay witness opinion testimony; MRE 701; Whether the testimony invaded the province of the jury; People v Fomby; Sufficiency of the evidence for a first-degree premeditated murder conviction; People v Oros; Premeditation; People v Unger

Holding that a police detective’s challenged testimony was admissible under MRE 701 and that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s first-degree premeditated murder conviction, the court affirmed. Video footage showed “defendant reach toward his waistband and throw something[.]” The detective testified “he believed defendant had removed a handgun from the right side of his waistband and tossed it to the back of the gas station.” Because this “testimony was rationally based on his observations of the surveillance footage, and was helpful to determine what object defendant tossed, his testimony was admissible under MRE 701. Moreover, because the testimony involved the identification of an object, and the detective never offered an opinion regarding defendant’s guilt or innocence, his testimony did not invade the province of the jury.” The court also found that all four Unger factors supported the jury’s finding of premeditation. “First, testimony from defendant’s friend and the victim’s mother demonstrated that defendant had a close prior relationship with the victim. Second, surveillance footage from the hotel” showed defendant and his codefendant (W) “waiting in the parking lot for an extended period of time before the victim came out. They arranged their vehicles to be close to one another, and defendant admitted to calling the victim when he arrived.” Third, defendant and W “led the victim behind a stairwell wall where he was then shot off-camera about nine seconds later.” The ME testified “the victim was shot twice; one of the gunshot wounds to [his] back was described as a contact wound, meaning that the barrel of the gun was pressed up against [his] body. Finally, after the shooting,” W and defendant fled. The surveillance footage showed “defendant hiding a backpack and discarding an object from his waistband, which the detective believed was a handgun.” The court noted that defendant “lied to first responders by telling them that he gave his sister the backpack. All these actions, viewed in a light most favorable to the” prosecution, supported “the jury’s finding that defendant thought about killing the victim beforehand[.]”