Sufficiency of the evidence; AWIGBH; People v Stevens; Felony-firearm; People v Moore; Self-defense; MCL 780.972(1); Aiding & abetting; MCL 767.39; People v Ventour; Inconsistent verdicts; People v Montague; Whether the jury instructions were confusing; People v McKinley

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s AWIGBH and felony-firearm convictions, and no reversible error occurred related to the jury instructions. The case arose from a shooting that took place during a THC edibles sales transaction. Defendant argued that “the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions under an aiding-and-abetting theory because his codefendant and principal, [J], was acquitted and their inconsistent verdicts were the result of juror confusion.” They were tried in a joint trial with separate juries – Jury A for J and Jury B for defendant. He contended that “because Jury A found [J] acted in self-defense,” there was no crime for him to aid and abet. But the court concluded that “Jury B was entitled, given the evidence presented to it, to find the prosecution carried its burden of proving [J] did not act in justifiable self-defense, even if Jury A came to the opposite conclusion. Jury B heard the testimony of the victim, who was shot several times and is permanently paralyzed as a result. It also heard” a police officer testify that J “admitted he had a firearm and was involved in the shooting. Jury B was instructed on self-defense but found the prosecution carried its burden of proving that [J] did not act in self-defense. On the evidence presented, Jury B could rationally find an actual crime was committed.” As to aiding and abetting, evidence supported “the inference that defendant arranged the meeting by hiding his identity, inducing the commission of the crime, and it shows [he] contributed to the physical assault in several ways. These actions satisfy the ‘acts of assistance’ element of aiding and abetting.” As to intent, he “brought armed ‘backup’ to the confrontation, demonstrating his awareness that a physical altercation involving firearms was possible.” As to defendant’s inconsistent verdicts argument, based “on the record, the instructions, when read as a whole, clearly, accurately, and adequately presented the requirements to convict [him] under an aiding and abetting theory.” Further it was “not ‘evident that the jury was confused, did not understand the instructions, or did not know what it was doing’ in this case.” Affirmed.