Armed robbery; Sufficiency of the evidence; Identity; Failure to preserve evidence; Due process; Brady v Maryland; Potentially useful evidence; Bad faith; Arizona v Youngblood; Lay opinion testimony; MRE 701; Invading the province of the jury; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Right to present a defense; Referring to jurors by numbers

The court held that sufficient circumstantial evidence established defendant’s identity as the person who committed the armed robbery, and that his remaining claims did not warrant relief. Defendant was convicted of robbing a Speedway gas station, and the central issue at trial was identity. On appeal, the court held that although no direct evidence identified him, the circumstantial evidence was “overwhelming.” Video showed the robber leaving and returning toward the Red Roof Inn where defendant was staying, wearing clothing matching items later found in his room or discarded nearby, and he appeared on hotel footage shortly after the robbery wearing similar clothing while dropping dollar bills. The court also held that there was no due-process violation from failure to preserve additional hotel footage because the government never possessed it, and police had no affirmative duty to seek and preserve merely potentially exculpatory evidence. It rejected his challenge to a detective’s lay testimony comparing clothing and boots because the testimony was either not identification testimony or was not plainly improper under MRE 701. The court further held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object, the trial court did not deny defendant the right to present a defense during closing argument, and referring to jurors by numbers did not create an anonymous jury or show prejudice. Affirmed.