Prosecutorial error; Inflammatory argument; People v Bahoda; Lay opinion testimony; MRE 701; People v Fomby; Sufficiency of the evidence; Assault with intent to murder (AWIM); MCL 750.83; Intent to kill; People v Ericksen; Sentencing; Proportionality; People v Posey; Accurate information; People v McGraw

The court held that defendant was not denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s arguments or law-enforcement testimony, that sufficient evidence supported his AWIM conviction, and that his within-guidelines sentence was proportionate. Defendant was convicted after evidence showed that he fired a handgun toward vehicles, shot toward a truck occupied by a father driving his daughter to preschool, and later pointed a gun toward an officer in a dollar store parking lot. On appeal, the court first held that the prosecutor’s references to defendant “hunting humans,” acting on a “rampage,” and potentially carrying out a “mass shooting” did not require reversal because the remarks were “grounded in the evidence presented at trial” and were “rhetorical characterizations of the evidence rather than assertions of facts not supported by the record.” The court also held that law-enforcement testimony about reloading, bullet strikes, firearm mechanics, and handgun accuracy was proper lay opinion because it was based on the officers’ observations and experience and “helped the jury understand the physical evidence and the mechanics of the firearm.” As to sufficiency, the court held that a rational jury could infer intent to kill because defendant “exited his vehicle and fired several shots toward” the victim, the victim heard bullets pass by, and one bullet struck his truck. The jury was not required to accept defendant’s claim that he intended only to frighten the victim. Finally, the court found that the trial court did not rely on inaccurate information at sentencing because it focused on defendant’s intoxication, drug-induced paranoia, the danger caused by firing at motorists, and “the number of innocent people” placed in jeopardy, rather than simply adopting the prosecutor’s attempted-mass-shooting characterization. Affirmed.