Motion for a directed verdict; Second-degree murder; People v Goecke; Causation; Malice; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to request an involuntary manslaughter jury instruction; Lack of record evidence supporting the instruction; Trial strategy; Failure to request M Crim JI 16.15 & 16.21; Instruction inconsistent with trial strategy; Inapplicable instruction; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); People v VanderVliet; MRE 403

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on the second-degree murder charge. It also rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other acts evidence. Thus, it affirmed his convictions of second-degree murder and tampering with evidence in a criminal case. The court first rejected his argument that his directed verdict motion should have been granted, concluding that there “was substantial and compelling circumstantial evidence that defendant both caused the victim’s death and that he did so with malice.” The evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that he “sought to have a sexual encounter with the victim,” his 17-year-old stepcousin; that she “resisted; that the encounter turned violent; and during” it, he caused her “death. The record established that for more than a year before the victim’s disappearance, defendant groomed” her. He sent her “sexually explicit text messages” and they met to smoke marijuana more than once. There was also indisputable evidence that (1) he picked her up from her home on the evening of 1/4/22, (2) they returned to his home, and (3) in the early morning hours of 1/5/22, he drove out of town and dumped her body into a dumpster. The court held that his suspicious actions on and after 1/5/22, “including disposing of the victim’s body, searching the internet to confirm that the evidence would be destroyed, lying to authorities, destroying cellular phone history, interfering with witnesses, and giving inconsistent statements to law enforcement, demonstrated a consciousness of guilt. This was strong and compelling circumstantial evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant caused the victim’s death” and that he acted with malice. The court also held that his trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request certain jury instructions, and that, given the prosecution’s theory, the other acts evidence (pornography evidence and internet searches) was “highly probative of” his motive. Further, its “probative value was also not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because the jury was only exposed to a general description of the pornography” he accessed.