Defense-of-others; People v Leffew; Reasonableness; People v Orlewicz; Necessity; People v Riddle; The Self-Defense Act; AWIGBH; Intent; Felonious assault

Concluding that a “rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in lawful defense of another[,]” the court affirmed his convictions. He was convicted of AWIGBH, felonious assault, and felony-firearm. The case arose from the nonfatal shooting of victim-M during a domestic dispute at a gas station. Defendant argued that the prosecution did not “present sufficient evidence to disprove his defense-of-others theory beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court disagreed. He used deadly force in twice firing a gun from close range at M. The dispositive question was whether he “honestly and reasonably believed that” another individual (B) “faced imminent death or great bodily harm and that shooting [M] was necessary to prevent that harm.” The court determined that a “rational juror could conclude that defendant’s belief was not reasonable. [M] and [B] were engaged in a fistfight. Neither man was armed.” While testimony indicated that M’s sister had a knife, she “was not participating in the fight, and there was no evidence that [M] had a weapon. More importantly, the testimony permitted the jury to find that [B] was not being overpowered when defendant fired. [B] had struck [M], the men had fallen or moved out of the vehicle, and [B] was on top of [M] when defendant shot him. This is consistent with both trial testimony and the video footage of this incident.” The court noted that after “the shooting, defendant had to be restrained from approaching again, which the jury could consider when evaluating whether his conduct reflected necessity rather than excessive force.” Further, testimony about prior threats did “not require a different result.” The court concluded that, even “accepting that some prior threat occurred, the jury could reasonably find that the prior threat did not make it reasonable for defendant to use deadly force months later, where [M] was unarmed, had not interacted with defendant at the gas station, and was involved in a fistfight in which [B] was on top.” The court also found that defendant’s testimony that he aimed for M’s legs did not “render the evidence insufficient.”