Jury instruction on the lesser included offense of manslaughter; People v Mendoza; People v Mitchell; Sufficiency of the evidence for a first-degree premeditated murder conviction; People v Oros; Evidence that defendant watched pornographic materials after the victim’s death; Relevance; MRE 401; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v Jones; Harmless error

The court held that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not giving a voluntary manslaughter jury instruction, (2) there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s first-degree premeditated murder conviction, and (3) any error in admitting evidence that he “watched pornographic materials after the victim’s death” was harmless. He first argued that the trial court erred in “not instructing the jury of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.” The court disagreed, concluding that the evidence did not support the instruction. While he asserted two bases for adequate provocation, the court noted that “when the claimed provocation consists only of words, it is generally considered inadequate provocation.” As to the second basis, the evidence indicated “that defendant may have initiated the act, and even if he did not initiate [it], he felt like he could simply tell the victim to stop if he did not like it.” Thus, the evidence did not support his allegation that the act in question “would have caused him to become so inflamed with a murderous passion that he could not make reasoned decisions.” The court added that, even assuming he “was adequately provoked, the evidence demonstrated that he had ample time to control his emotions.” Among other things, he told someone “that when he saw that the victim was ‘groggy,’ he looked at her and decided that he had to ‘finish her off[,]’” and the medical examiner testified that “death by strangulation takes approximately two minutes[.]” As to the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction, his claim “that the victim’s death was an accident is directly rebutted by his own statement that he chose not to stop choking her when she requested that he stop.” Further, there was ample evidence that could lead a rational trier of fact “to find that there was sufficient time for a reasonable person in [his] shoes to subject his action to a second look.” Among the evidence supporting a finding of premeditation and deliberation was “the nature, number, and location of the victim’s wounds, including evidence of multiple blows to her head, as well as fractured cartilage in her neck;” the presence of his DNA under her fingernails; and his “post offense conduct of physically concealing the crime[.]” Affirmed.