Motion for a mistrial; Considering the isolated nature of improper testimony when determining whether defendant was denied a fair trial; People v Waclawski; Sufficiency of the evidence; Identity; Sentencing; People v Lockridge; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v Milbourn; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence based on accurately scored guidelines; MCL 769.34(10); People v Jackson; Cruel & unusual punishment; People v Brown

The court held that defendant was not entitled to a mistrial or resentencing, and that the evidence was sufficient to support his second-degree murder conviction. He requested a mistrial after declining to answer a question he claimed was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The trial court found the evidence inadmissible because its relevance was “flimsy at best and it was inflammatory and more prejudicial than probative.” But it denied his motion for a mistrial and instead provided a curative instruction. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that he was entitled to a mistrial, finding the question did not impair his “rights or incurably taint his trial. The question was brief and isolated. It was posed on the sixth day of trial, took up all of a few seconds, and was not answered.” While it was deemed irrelevant, it did “not appear that the prosecutor intentionally attempted to inject inflammatory material into the trial; she provided a justification for admission of the evidence, although her petition was denied.” Further, any error was cured. “The jury was instructed, both at the beginning of trial and shortly after the improper question, that the lawyers’ questions were not evidence, only the witnesses’ responses were.” The court also rejected his claim that the evidence of his identity as the culprit was insufficient to support his conviction. Given his “admission that he lied to the police multiple times during his interview, the jury had more than adequate justification not to credit his version of events. Ultimately, sufficient evidence was presented for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that” defendant, and not someone else, shot the victim in defendant’s vehicle on the night in question. Finally, the court rejected his sentencing challenges, noting he “committed one of the most egregious offenses under our criminal code.” A jury determined he killed the victim “at point-blank range with no indication of any excuse or justification.” Further, because he was sentenced within the guidelines minimum “range, his punishment was proportional when compared to punishments for other crimes in this state.” Affirmed.