First-degree murder; Premeditation & deliberation; Sufficiency of the evidence; Identity; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Forensic pathologist testimony; Cause & manner of death; People v Unger; Cross-examination; Lesser-included offenses; Expert assistance; People v Kennedy; People v Ackley; Bindover; Open murder; People v Coddington

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s first-degree murder conviction and that he failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. The victim was found shot and run over near a boat launch. Defendant argued the prosecution failed to prove identity, premeditation, and deliberation. The court rejected that challenge, reasoning there was “overwhelming evidence” defendant killed the victim, including witnesses who testified defendant said he had “caught a body,” evidence linking him to the gun and vehicle, the victim’s blood in the car, McDonald’s evidence tying the victim to the vehicle shortly before death, and defendant’s Internet searches about fingerprints on a body in water. The court also held that premeditation and deliberation were supported by testimony that defendant said he “had thought about doing it” at one location but chose not to because a house was nearby, then killed the victim at a more secluded boat launch. The court next held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object when the medical examiner identified the manner of death as homicide because Unger allows a forensic pathologist to testify about “both the cause of death and the manner of death.” It also rejected defendant’s claims about cross-examination, lesser offenses, and expert assistance because counsel reasonably focused on challenging premeditation, the jury was instructed on second-degree murder, and defendant identified no scientific controversy or central forensic issue comparable to Ackley. Finally, the court held that he could not challenge bindover after conviction, and counsel was not ineffective at the preliminary exam because evidence of premeditation was presented even though open murder did not require proof of premeditation at bindover. Affirmed.