Sufficient evidence for convictions of first-degree premeditated murder & assault causing death to a fetus or embryo; MCL 750.316(1)(a); MCL 750.90b(a); Waiver of right to counsel during a police interview; Plain error review; Outcome-determinative error

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions of first-degree premeditated murder and assault causing death to a fetus. While it found that whether she waived her right to counsel during a police interview was a close question, even if she did not, the evidence was sufficient to support her convictions without relying on the interview. The case arose from “a love triangle between defendant, the victim, and a man” (S) with whom both women were involved. She argued “there was evidence that contradicted the prosecutor’s theory of the shooting, including the witness’s identification of the shooter as a man and the victim’s familiarity with the area where the shooting occurred. But” the court noted that a prosecutor does not have “to ‘disprove every reasonable theory consistent with innocence[.]’” Defendant repeatedly sent S “angry text messages regarding his romantic involvement with the victim. Days before the murder, defendant purchased a burner phone, and that phone was used to call the victim within minutes of when the murder occurred. And after the murder, defendant’s other phone recorded internet searches including the victim’s name, ballistics, various news outlets, questions about death, and the” county morgue. While “the witness identified the shooter as male, the witness also believed the victim was male, which was a mistake. Regardless of that mistake, the witness identified the shooter’s vehicle as a silver Malibu, which is the same style of vehicle defendant drove. A silver Malibu was also seen on video driving in the area, and defendant admitted to being in the area that night.” The court determined that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of the crimes. She also contended that she did not voluntarily waive her right to counsel during her police interview. The record indicated that she “asserted her right to counsel one minute but then reinitiated the conversation and waived that right in the next, over and over again.” Applying plain error review, the court concluded that regardless of whether she waived her right, any error was not outcome-determinative. She “did not admit guilt or knowledge about the victim’s death during the interrogation.” And the evidence other than the portions of the video interview shown at trial was sufficient to convict her. Affirmed.