Sufficiency of the evidence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction; Self-defense; People v Dupree; The Self-Defense Act; MCL 780.972(1)(a); Sentencing; Scoring of OV 5; MCL 777.35(1)(a)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s voluntary manslaughter conviction because a rational trier of fact could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the prosecution disproved his self-defense claim. It also upheld the 15-point score for OV 5. The case arose from the shooting death of victim-S. The court concluded the record did “not support that defendant ‘honestly and reasonably believe[d] that the use of deadly force [was] necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself . . . or to another individual’ such that insufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict.” It noted that he testified “he initially left the area, and later he did nothing when [S] ran by his family members while leaving the immediate area even though he thought [S] still had a gun. Then, with the situation apparently stable and no obvious imminent danger, defendant testified that he followed [S] and shot [him] again, supposedly because [S] started to raise his gun toward him. Defendant then returned to his house while his family members remained in the parking lot where [S] still had access to a gun and defendant not knowing if [S] was dead. A rational trier of fact could find defendant guilty based on these facts.” The court also noted that “the jury was in the best position to consider conflicting testimony and assess the credibility of the witnesses, some of whom it could have found less credible.” In addition, it saw a surveillance video that showed defendant approaching S, “defendant shooting him the first time while [S] was seated on the ground, [S] standing up and running away from defendant and his family members, defendant pursuing [him], and defendant shooting [S] a second time, though the view of the second shooting was obstructed.” While he testified that he shot S “to protect himself and his family, a rational juror could infer that he was acting out of passion after being provoked when [S] shot his daughter[.]” As to the scoring of OV 5, while “professional treatment had not yet been sought, the nature and description of the psychological effect of [S’s] death on his family members indicated that [it] ‘may be necessary in the future.’” Affirmed.