Self-defense & defense of others; People v Dupree; MCL 780.972(1)(a); Credibility; Sentencing; Scoring of OVs 3 & 5; People v Houston; MCL 777.35(1)(a); People v Baskerville; People v Felton; Waiver; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object

The court held that the record showed beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in lawful self-defense or defense of others. As to his sentencing challenges, Houston controlled as to the scoring of OV 3, OV 5 was correctly scored at 15 points, and defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object. Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, felony-firearm, CCW, and resisting or obstructing a police officer for the shooting and death of victim-J. Defendant contended “that he acted in self-defense and in the defense of others because” J was choking defendant’s friend (B), and he feared for his and B’s lives. But the court held that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to reject his self-defense claim. While he testified that he was scared for B’s “life when he fired his gun twice, this was contrasted by the testimony from one witness that the fight between [J] and [B] was not serious. Neither [J] nor [B] had a weapon. Defendant and one witness stated that [B] was choked during the fight. There was no indication as to how long [B] was choked or if he lost consciousness at any point. Defendant acknowledged that he did not know where he was aiming and could have hit [B]. A rational juror could have found that [he] was not reasonably afraid for his” or B’s lives when he fired. The court also noted that he “did not mention being afraid for his life or [B’s] life when speaking with the police.” It concluded that the evidence showed “there was not an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm to [B] or defendant, and [his] use of deadly force was unnecessary. Additionally, by returning to the apartment after being asked to leave, defendant was no longer in a place where he had the legal right to be, as required for self-defense under MCL 780.972(1).” As to the scoring of OV 5, the statements of J’s family at sentencing were more than sufficient to show that they “experienced serious psychological injury that may require professional treatment beyond the grief caused by losing a family member. There was discussion of the generational impact this will have on [J’s] family, including his three young children.”