Sufficiency of the evidence; Second-degree murder; “Malice”; Judicial impartiality; Instructional error; Claim that the trial court improperly interrupted defendant numerous times while testifying; Self-defense instruction; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to request a voluntary manslaughter jury instruction; Sentencing; Refusal to admit guilt; Accurate information & acquitted conduct; Reasonable & proportionate

The court held that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find defendant guilty of second-degree murder. Also, the trial court did not pierce the veil of judicial impartiality. Further, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finally, he was not entitled to resentencing. He was convicted of second-degree murder, CCW, FIP, FIP of ammunition, and felony-firearm. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 60 to 95 years for the second-degree murder conviction, CCW, FIP, and FIP of ammunition, as well as 2 years for both felony-firearm convictions. He claimed that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence of the requisite malice because the defense presented evidence that defendant did not intend to kill victim-R. Despite defendant’s testimony that he did not intend to kill R, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence that defendant acted with malice. “Defendant armed himself with a gun, knowing there could be an altercation, he exited the coney island, knowing that [R] was outside, he covered the gun with a bandana and held it behind his back, illustrating that he intended to hide it, and he shot [R] in the upper body from close range. Further, defendant testified that he had the intent to stop [R] by shooting him, he almost shot [R] while he was on the ground, but he allowed [R] to stand up before shooting him, and he chose not to leave the scene after being punched because he believed he had a right to stand his ground in Michigan.” On the basis of his actions and his own testimony, the jury could reasonably find that he either shot R “with the intent to cause great bodily harm, or with the intent to do an act in wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of such behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm.” Also, on the basis of the evidence as a whole, the jury could determine that “the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the defense presented evidence in support of self-defense, conflicting evidence and factual disputes are matters for the jury to resolve.” Affirmed.