Second-degree murder; Sufficiency of the evidence; Malice; Self-defense; MCL 780.972; Prosecutorial error; Facts not in evidence; Sympathy; Evidentiary error; Relevance; MRE 602; MRE 401; MRE 403

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s second-degree murder conviction, that the challenged prosecutorial remarks did not deny him a fair trial, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony about a knife sheath. Defendant was convicted after his roommate died from sharp-force trauma to the neck. Defendant claimed he acted in self-defense during a struggle over a knife. On appeal, the court first held that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence of causation and malice because defendant admitted during the 911 call that “the knife slit [the victim’s] throat,” DNA evidence connected both men to the knife, and the victim’s injuries involved severe trauma, multiple “tails” from the wound, and a separate stab wound to the back of the neck. The court also held that the prosecution disproved self-defense because the physical evidence did not support defendant’s claim that “the knife just came across” the victim’s neck, and the evidence of multiple controlled attacks allowed a rational juror to find that deadly force was not necessary. The court next rejected defendant’s prosecutorial-error claims, holding that the prosecutor’s remarks about immobilization, an attack from behind, the absence of another knife, defendant’s injuries, and the amount of blood at the scene were either supported by the evidence or were reasonable inferences from it. The court further held that any potential error was cured by instructions that the lawyers’ arguments were not evidence and that the jury must not be influenced by sympathy. Finally, the court held that the trial court properly allowed the victim’s mother to testify that she later found a knife sheath in the basement where defendant lived because her testimony was based on personal knowledge, was relevant to whether defendant used a knife, and was not unfairly prejudicial in light of stronger evidence connecting him to the knife. Affirmed.