Sufficiency of the evidence; Identity; Intentional discharge of a firearm at a dwelling (MCL 750.234b); People v Oros; Discovery violation; Brady v Maryland; Waiver; People v Kowalski

The court held that the prosecution presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to identify defendant as the shooter, and that defendant waived appellate review of the late-disclosed discovery issue by agreeing to proceed to trial without the new material. The case arose from a shooting at a home where multiple bullets struck the front windows, screen door, interior wall, and kitchen, and officers recovered 18 nine-millimeter shell casings. The jury convicted defendant of intentional discharge of a firearm at a dwelling, felony-firearm, and FIP. On appeal, the court held that the identity element of firearm discharge was supported by substantial circumstantial evidence. It explained that surveillance screenshots showed a “silver SUV” passing the house, returning, and a man in a black and gold coat firing at the home before getting back into the vehicle. Defendant was tied to the shooting because he was stopped the next day while driving a silver SUV, police found a black and tan coat with a tether charger in the trunk, recovered a nine-millimeter pistol near the center console, and GPS tether data placed him in close proximity to the house at the time of the shooting. The court held that these facts provided “substantial, if not overwhelming, circumstantial evidence” of identity. As to his discovery claim, the court found that any claim of error was waived because defense counsel said he was “happy” to proceed with only the previously disclosed evidence, and defendant personally confirmed that he wanted to proceed even though the new material might be exculpatory. The court also noted that defendant failed on appeal to identify any Brady material that would have aided his case. Affirmed.