Sufficiency of the evidence for a second-degree murder conviction; Self-defense; MCL 780.972(1)(a); Necessity of deadly force; Lying to officers; Attempts to hide evidence; Malice; Great weight of the evidence

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant-Holden’s second-degree murder conviction and that it was not against the great weight of the evidence, the court affirmed. He was also convicted of felony-firearm and lying to a peace officer during a violent crime investigation. He fatally shot the victim (H) during an argument in defendant’s apartment. He contended “there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to determine that (1) the shooting was not justified by self-defense or (2) that [he] acted with malice when he shot” H. But the court concluded “there was sufficient evidence for a rational fact-finder to determine that deadly force was not necessary to avoid the danger that decedent posed. Neither party disputes that decedent arrived at Holden’s home armed and later tried to physically fight and slapped Holden. And two witnesses testified that decedent was not holding his firearm when Holden shot him. Thus, viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the loaded firearm was not on decedent’s person and a slap is not sufficient provocation to warrant deadly force.” Further, a video showed that he continued to shoot H even after H “tried to retreat; the shot while decedent’s back was turned supports this.” The court added that, even “if one thinks it unrealistic that one would come forward to police after fatally shooting someone in their home, our caselaw is clear that lying to two different officers when questioned about the shooting can discredit Holden’s self-defense argument.” Defendant also “tried to hide evidence of the shooting.” As to his malice argument, by asserting “he acted in self-defense, Holden necessarily conceded that there was sufficient evidence that he acted with malice.” His great weight of the evidence claim primarily restated his failed sufficiency of the evidence argument. While he alternatively asserted that the great weight of the evidence supported a finding that “the murder was mitigated to voluntary manslaughter” the court noted the jury was instructed on that offense and still found him guilty of second-degree murder, a determination it would not second-guess.