Motion for relief from judgment; Good cause or actual prejudice; MCR 6.508(D)(3); Aiding-&-abetting instructions; Intent; Sufficiency of the evidence; False testimony; Due process; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to identification; Failure to object to the cooperation agreement

The court held that because the claims underlying defendant’s motion for relief from judgment lacked merit, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. Nor did it err in concluding that he failed to establish good cause or actual prejudice under MCR 6.508(D)(3). Thus, the court affirmed the order denying defendant’s motion for relief from judgment. He was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, AWIM, intentional discharge of a firearm at an occupied structure, and felony-firearm. The case arose out of violence between two rival gangs. First, defendant argued “that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it instructed the jury on aiding and abetting because the instructions allowed the jury to find him guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and AWIM even if he lacked the requisite intent to kill.” He argued “that the aiding-and-abetting instruction permitted the jury to convict him of first-degree murder and AWIM based on a lesser mens rea—mere knowledge—than that which is required by statute.” The court held that the “instruction given here was consistent with our caselaw and correctly set forth the elements of aiding and abetting. Indeed, our Supreme Court has expressly rejected the argument that an aiding-and-abetting conviction requires ‘the accomplice to have the identical intent as the principal.”’ Instead, a “defendant is liable for the offense the defendant intended to commit or intended to aid and abet.” The court concluded that because “the trial court properly instructed the jury, defendant cannot establish clear or obvious error. [Thus,] the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief on this basis.” Second, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an aiding-and-abetting instruction. The court found that the “trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that an aiding-and-abetting instruction was supported by the evidence.” It held that the evidence “supported a finding that multiple KMB members, including defendant, acted in concert to ambush 220 members in retaliation for [co-defendant’s] shooting. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in providing the aiding-and-abetting instruction or in denying relief on that basis.” Also, because defendant had “not shown plain error with respect to any of the alleged false testimony, he has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for relief from judgment on that basis.”