Motion for a new trial; Sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a self-defense claim; The Self-Defense Act; MCL 780.972(1)(a); Exclusion of a defense expert witness; MRE 702; People v Kowalski (Kowalski II); Jury instructions; M Crim JI 4.1; Giving of both M Crim JI 7.15 & 7.16; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object; Trial strategy

The court held that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to rebut defendant-Chambers’s self-defense theory, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a defense expert’s testimony. It also rejected his jury instruction arguments and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Thus, it found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. He was convicted of second-degree murder. To rebut the self-defense claim, the prosecution presented evidence that defendant knew the victim (H) “well for several years and that [H] never displayed any hostility toward” him, even when defendant’s friend (J) let H “into the house seconds before Chambers killed him. [J] testified that he did not see that [H] had any signs of aggression, and he heard no altercation during the 10 to 15 seconds that [H] and Chambers were alone in the kitchen. Other witnesses who were in the house at the time of the shooting also testified that they did not hear any yelling or sounds of a struggle before they heard gunshots.” In addition, the prosecution “presented evidence that Chambers was a competitive heavyweight boxer and knew how to physically fight an opponent. Chambers admitted that he was the only person who was allowed to have a gun inside [J’s] house, and [H] did not display a gun or threaten to shoot before he shot him. Evidence also showed that Chambers was near another door of the house and that he could have left in his running car; he could have yelled for help; or he could have walked to” a room where others were located. J “and the other witnesses in the house testified that, unlike Chambers, they did not see [H] with a gun or know him to regularly carry” one. The prosecution also presented evidence that H “had a reputation for being nonviolent.” Further, it showed that defendant shot H “in the back of the head and that [H] did not continue forward toward Chambers because blood evidence showed that Chambers fired at least two of the three shots when [H] was on the landing near the door of the house rather than in the kitchen.” As to the exclusion of his expert’s testimony (which was based on personal, anecdotal experience), the trial court did not err in ruling that it “would not assist the jury on a matter beyond the common understanding of the average juror.” Affirmed.