First-degree murder; MCL 750.316; Identity; People v Hardiman; Conspiracy intent; MCL 750.157a; People v Mass; Right to a fair trial; Improper vouching; Investigative steps testimony; MRE 701; People v Lowrey

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder arising from a gang-related shooting, and that a detective’s testimony describing the investigation did not constitute improper vouching warranting relief. At a 2019 fireworks event, the victim and his girlfriend drove through a parking area and encountered a group of 10 to 15 men believed to be Latin Kings gang members. Two armed men approached the driver’s side in traffic and multiple shots were fired, killing the victim and injuring the girlfriend. The prosecution presented bystander descriptions of a Hispanic shooter in a “plain white T-shirt” at the driver’s side, and surveillance video showing a similarly dressed man fleeing immediately after the gunfire. Further, there was testimony from Latin Kings members and associates that defendant was in the group, pursued the vehicle, and fired at close range toward the driver’s side, with one witness describing defendant later acknowledging involvement. The court held that identity may be proven by circumstantial evidence and that the jury could credit the gang witnesses and reconcile lineup issues where defendant was not initially a suspect and resembled early lineup selections. It also held that defendant’s flight to Guatemala and later extradition supported “consciousness of guilt.” On conspiracy, the court held that a jury could infer a “tacit agreement” from the coordinated pursuit, shared gang affiliation, and collective participation in the shooting. It noted conspiracies rarely have direct proof and do not require an explicit discussion of murder. Finally, reviewing an unpreserved issue for plain error, the court held that a detective’s testimony was a permissible narrative of investigative steps and he did not opine that witnesses were truthful or that defendant was guilty, so it did not invade the jury’s role. Affirmed.