Sufficiency of the evidence for a second-degree murder conviction; Self-defense; People v Bailey; Jury selection; Juror excusal for cause; MCR 2.511(E)(10); People v Eccles; Sentencing; Proportionality; People v Steanhouse; OVs 5 & 9; MCL 777.35 & 777.39; Habitual-offender notice; MCL 769.13; Acquitted conduct; Waiver

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s second-degree murder conviction because the prosecution disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and that defendant was not entitled to relief on his jury-selection or sentencing claims. Defendant shot the victim (L) inside a Benton Harbor gas station after a prior altercation between the two men had been posted on social media. The shooting was captured on multiple surveillance videos without audio. L entered the store holding a coffee and grabbed a bottle of water in the store. Defendant got in line directly behind him, and after a verbal exchange defendant brandished and racked a gun, pointed it down, then raised it and shot L in the chest. On appeal, the court held that the prosecution rebutted self-defense because defendant had already encountered L outside, could have left, but instead reentered the store, got in line behind L, and shot an unarmed man who was still holding two drinks, making it reasonable for the jury to reject defendant’s claim that he faced an immediate threat. The court next held that the trial court properly followed Eccles in excusing six jurors who had prior criminal matters in the county, because Eccles remains binding precedent and defendant failed to show any error. The court also held that defendant’s 50-year minimum sentence for second-degree murder was proportionate because it fell within the guidelines, the trial court expressly considered “protection of the community, punishment, deterrence, restitution, and reformation,” and defendant was a fourth-offense habitual offender. The court further held that there was no improper reliance on acquitted conduct, that OV 5 and OV 9 were properly scored, that any OV 3 challenge was waived, and that defendant waived his habitual-offender-notice challenge by expressly agreeing at sentencing that he had no objection to the enhancement. Affirmed.