Self-defense; Evidence of the victim’s prior murder conviction; MRE 405(b); People v Edwards; Sufficiency of the evidence; Self-defense rebuttal; People v Stevens; Missing witness instruction; Due diligence to produce an unavailable witness; M Crim JI 5.12; People v Eccles; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial preparation & jury instructions; People v Fyda

The court held that defendant was not entitled to a new trial because 1) any error in excluding evidence of the victim’s prior murder conviction was harmless, 2) the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to disprove self-defense, 3) the prosecutor exercised due diligence regarding the missing witness, and 4) defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant confronted her ex-boyfriend, G, at his smoke shop over money. She shattered glassware, tried to strike him with an umbrella, was pushed outside and locked out, then returned to the door, pulled a handgun from her purse, and fired “a single round at [G] through the locked door” before the two exchanged gunfire. On appeal, the court first held that even assuming the trial court erred by barring testimony about G’s prior murder conviction, the error was harmless because defendant still presented her self-defense theory through evidence of his other violent acts and gun possession. It noted that the surveillance video showed she shot “through a locked door, without any apparent threat, and with the ability to remove herself from the situation,” which the court called “fatal to her self-defense claim[.]” The court next held that the evidence was sufficient because the video established that defendant “intentionally fired into an occupied building,” and the prosecution “produced sufficient evidence to exclude self-defense,” namely “the surveillance video,” which showed “the ability to leave and a lack of reasonable apprehension of harm[.]” The court also held that no missing-witness instruction was required because the prosecutor did “everything reasonable” to find G. Finally, the court held that counsel’s alleged failures in preparation and jury instructions did not prejudice defendant because “the surveillance footage that was played to the jury remain[ed] fatal to her defense.” Affirmed.