Juvenile delinquency; Sufficiency of the evidence; People v Kenny; Assault with intent to murder (AWIM); MCL 750.83; Identity; People v Yost; Intent to kill; People v Brown; Transferred intent; People v Lawton; Felony-firearm; MCL 750.227b(1); People v Avant

The court held that sufficient evidence supported respondent’s juvenile adjudications for AWIM and felony-firearm. Respondent was adjudicated responsible after an attempted carjacking was followed minutes later by gunfire directed at responding officers. Although the trial court found that the victim “wasn’t really able to identify who the person was that had the gun” during the attempted carjacking, it found respondent responsible for AWIM and felony-firearm for the later shooting at the officers. On appeal, the court first held that identity was sufficiently established because dashcam footage showed that “the shooter wore gray,” the other individuals wore black, and troopers later found respondent nearby wearing gray sweatpants. The court also relied on testimony that a handgun with an extended magazine was found “directly beneath him,” concluding that “a rational factfinder could reasonably infer that respondent was the individual who fired at the officers.” As to intent, the court held that the evidence supported an intent to kill because respondent “turned toward the officers and fired 8 to 10 rounds at their vehicle,” struck the cruiser twice, fled, and attempted to conceal his clothing and the firearm. The court further rejected respondent’s argument that the evidence did not show an intent to kill each officer, explaining that under transferred intent, “‘it is only necessary that the state of mind exist, not that it be directed at a particular person.’” Because the AWIM adjudications were supported, respondent’s derivative challenge to the felony-firearm adjudications also failed. Affirmed.