Substitution of counsel; People v McFall; Breakdown in attorney-client relationship; Comparing People v Meyers; Sufficiency of the evidence; First-degree premeditated murder; MCL 750.316(1)(a); People v Oros; Identity & premeditation elements

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s request for substitute counsel and that sufficient evidence supported his first-degree premeditated murder conviction. He was convicted of fatally shooting the victim in an alley behind a party store. Surveillance footage showed him and three other men arriving at the store, defendant waiting outside until the victim arrived, and following the victim into the store. It also showed the group then walking together toward the alley where the victim was shot from behind. Six days before trial, defendant unsuccessfully sought new counsel, claiming appointed counsel would not file certain motions and would not approach trial the way he wanted. On appeal, the court held that defendant failed to show good cause for substitution because counsel had made repeated efforts to meet with him, had spoken with him and his father, had visited him in jail, and was prepared for trial, while “defendant had a pattern of shutting down and walking out of meetings.” The court noted that disagreements over what motions to file are matters of trial strategy and that general dissatisfaction with counsel is insufficient. The court next held that the evidence was sufficient to prove both identity and premeditation. It explained that surveillance footage placed defendant in a blue jacket at the scene, showed him lingering until the victim arrived, and captured events immediately before the shooting, while testimony placed defendant near the alley just before the gunshot. The court concluded that this circumstantial evidence permitted the jury to find an intentional, deliberate killing beyond a reasonable doubt. Affirmed.