Sufficiency of the evidence; Bank robbery; MCL 750.531; Armed robbery; MCL 750.529 & MCL 750.530; Identification evidence; Due process; People v Posey; Appellate review of incomplete record; Transcript omission; People v Dunigan

The court held that sufficient evidence established defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of both bank robberies and the related armed-robbery offense, and that any alleged suggestiveness in a teller’s identification did not warrant reversal because the remaining evidence of identity was overwhelming. The case involved two bank robberies in the fall of 2020. At trial the prosecution introduced DNA evidence from a black bag dropped during the first robbery, testimony from the teller robbed during the second incident, surveillance evidence, vehicle descriptions, and evidence from defendant’s cell phone. The trial court denied defendant’s motion in limine challenging the teller’s identification and the jury convicted him of bank robbery in one case and armed robbery and bank robbery in the other. On appeal, the court held that the identity evidence was sufficient because 1) the DNA on the dropped bag was “234 billion times more likely to have come from defendant and three unknown individuals” than from four unrelated people, 2) the second teller testified she was “100% certain” defendant was the robber, and 3) the evidence showed the robber left in vehicles matching those tied to defendant’s girlfriends, one of which defendant indisputably drove. The court also held that even if the identification procedure at the preliminary exam was unnecessarily suggestive, reversal was not required because “the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” in light of the “overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that defendant was the robber[.]” The court also declined to review the separate challenge to the first teller’s identification because defendant failed to provide the transcript of the motion hearing, and the court generally refuses “‘to consider issues for which an appellant has failed to do so[.]’” Affirmed.