Sufficiency of the evidence for an AWIM conviction; Intent; People v. Stevens; People v Everett; Credibility; Sentencing; Proportionality of a within-guidelines sentence; People v Ventour; Mitigating circumstances; Waived OV 6 scoring issue

Holding that there was sufficient evidence of intent to support defendant’s AWIM conviction and that his within-guidelines sentence was reasonable and proportionate, the court affirmed. The case arose from his firing a shotgun at his wife (DR). He was sentenced to 15 to 30 years for his AWIM conviction. He argued there was insufficient evidence of intent to support that conviction. The court disagreed, concluding “that the jury was presented with more than sufficient evidence from which it could be inferred that defendant had the intent to kill DR.” While he asserted “he never expressed a plan to kill DR, such explicit statements are not necessary because minimal circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove intent.” The circumstances of the assault and his actions after it “supported an inference of intent to kill. First and foremost, an intent to kill can be inferred by [his] use of a deadly weapon.” He grabbed a single-barrel shotgun that he kept in his bedroom closet, “loaded it, and proceeded toward DR’s room. [He] knew that DR was staying in the guest bedroom and fired the shotgun as she opened the door. The trajectory of the shot was toward the center mass of the average person, and the buckshot fired from the shotgun was more than capable of killing. Further, after firing the shotgun, defendant continued to advance and jammed the barrel of the gun between the door and doorframe.” In addition, his “extensive lies and attempts to hide what happened support an inference that he had the intent to kill. After shooting at DR, defendant immediately began what he himself described as a ‘cover-up.’” The court noted that the jury was able to assess his “credibility and found his testimony that he did not have a plan to kill DR not credible.” The court found that assessment “more than reasonable given the disparity between defendant’s story immediately after the incident and at trial. [His] story about what happened changed several times throughout the investigation: from claiming there was an intruder, to admitting he fired the shotgun and had tried to cover it up, to testifying that he had been dreaming about hunting when he fired the shotgun at DR.”