Armed robbery; MCL 750.529; Larceny; Self-defense; Inconsistent verdicts; Expert testimony; Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); Diminished capacity; People v Carpenter; People v Yost; Sentencing; Acquitted conduct; People v Beck; OVs 1, 4, & 9; Departure sentence; Proportionality; People v Dixon-Bey

The court held that: 1) sufficient evidence supported defendant’s armed-robbery convictions; 2) the jury did not return impermissibly inconsistent verdicts; 3) PTSD expert testimony was properly excluded; and 4) his departure sentence was reasonable. Defendant was acquitted of murder and AWIM but convicted of two armed robberies and related felony-firearm counts after a drug-sale meeting ended with one victim dead, another severely injured, and defendant taking a backpack containing cash. The trial court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial and sentenced him above the guidelines for armed robbery. On appeal, the court held that the armed-robbery evidence was sufficient because defendant did not have to complete the larceny or take the cash “contemporaneously with the use of force or assaultive conduct.” It reasoned that the jury could infer he used the gun to attempt to rob the victims before the shootings, or to put them in fear afterward so he could take the money and escape. The court next rejected defendant’s inconsistent-verdict argument because the record did not show the jury acquitted him on self-defense grounds, and “‘[j]urors are presumed to follow their instructions.’” It also held that his proposed PTSD expert testimony was inadmissible to show he could not form intent because Carpenter bars a diminished-capacity defense, and defendant identified no permissible purpose under Yost. Finally, the court held that the trial court did not rely on acquitted conduct at sentencing because it expressly acknowledged Beck and did not use the shootings as departure reasons. The court found the above-guidelines sentence proportionate where defendant failed to render aid, failed to call police, took advantage of “an opportunity to execute an armed robbery,” and then engaged in conspicuous spending. Affirmed.