Felony murder; Armed robbery; Aiding & abetting; Newly discovered evidence; MCR 6.431(B); People v Cress; Codefendant statements; People v Terrell; Statement against interest; MRE 804(b)(4); Great weight of the evidence; Malice

The court held that defendant-Rosa was not entitled to a new trial based on his codefendants’ posttrial statements denying his involvement in the ATM robbery and murder, and that the felony-murder verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence. Defendant, his codefendants, and a stolen vehicle were tied to an overnight robbery spree that included the fatal shooting of a victim at an ATM. On appeal, the court first held that Terrell controlled because “a codefendant’s belated exculpatory testimony was not newly discovered evidence,” and defendant knew before trial that his codefendants were charged in the same murder and had relevant information. It also found no conflict panel was warranted because the issue was not outcome determinative and it concluded the majority opinion in Terrell was correctly decided. The court reasoned that the codefendants’ statements were not sworn, one codefendant recanted, the statements appeared “crafted to explain” the cell-phone and gun evidence, and it was “not probable that Rosa absented himself for the single most serious stage of the overnight crime spree.” The statements also lacked trustworthiness for admission as statements against interest. The court next held that the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence because the jury could infer defendant aided and abetted the robbery and murder by driving a getaway car, waiting to assist, acting as a lookout, or encouraging the others. It further reasoned that defendant “demonstrated malice and a willingness to use deadly force” by firing his gun during an earlier robbery in the same spree. Affirmed.