AWIM; MCL 750.83; Flight evidence; Consciousness of guilt; People v Unger; People v Smelley; Flight jury instruction; Firearm evidence; Relevance; MRE 401; MRE 403; Weapon of the kind used in the offense; People v Hall; People v Murphy (On Remand); Sentencing; OV 3; MCL 777.33(1)(c); OV 6; MCL 777.36(1)(a) (premeditated intent to kill); OV 19; MCL 777.49(c)

The court held that the trial court did not err by admitting flight and firearm evidence, instructing the jury on flight, or scoring OVs 3, 6, and 19. Defendant was convicted of AWIM, FIP, CCW, and felony-firearm after shooting the victim following a car accident. The trial court admitted evidence that defendant was extradited from Florida and later possessed a 9mm handgun, instructed the jury on flight, and rejected his challenges to OVs 3, 6, and 19. On appeal, the court first held that the flight instruction was supported because defendant ran from the scene after firing several shots and was later extradited from Florida and Arizona. It rejected his claim that the prosecution had to show he left Michigan to avoid arrest because the prosecutor was “not required to show that defendant was motivated by a fear of apprehension.” The court next held that the handgun evidence was relevant direct evidence because defendant later possessed a “weapon of the same kind” used in the shooting and the recovered gun “could have been used” to fire the shell casings found at the crime scene. It also held that MRE 403 did not bar the evidence, especially because the trial court instructed the jury not to treat it as bad-character evidence. Finally, the court held that OV 3 was properly scored at 25 points because the victim bled, received a tourniquet, lost consciousness, and was taken to the hospital, 50 points for OV 6 was supported because defendant threatened to kill the victim, walked across the parking lot, and fired seven shots, and 10 points for OV 19 was supported by defendant’s extraditions and failure to appear. Affirmed.