Sufficiency of the evidence to support the defendant’s first-degree felony murder & armed robbery convictions; People v. Smith; Aiding & abetting; MCL 767.39; People v. Robinson; People v. Riley; People v. Rockwell; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Strickland v. Washington; People v. Pickens; People v. Carbin; Matters of trial strategy; People v. Cline; Factual predicate requirement; People v. Hoag; Alleged failure to conduct a reasonable investigation; People v. Trakhtenberg; Failure to call any codefendants to testify; People v. Horn; People v. Rice (On Remand); A “substantial defense”; People v. Kelly

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s felony murder conviction on an aiding and abetting theory, and rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the court affirmed his felony murder and armed robbery convictions. He was in the victim’s (E) home when the police arrived. “By that time, the armed robbery was already in progress” and E “had already been beaten and shot.” E’s blood “was found on defendant’s clothing, including his shoes, and defendant could not be excluded as a donor of DNA that was found on one of the guns.” Further, after the police knocked and announced their presence, he “opened the door, looked outside, and immediately slammed the door shut. By doing so, defendant interfered with the officers’ ability to respond to the crime, hindered their ability to render aid” to E while he was still alive, “and facilitated his codefendants’ attempted escape.” The court concluded that the jury could reasonably find that he “was an active participant in the armed robbery.” Further, one of “the natural consequences of the commission of armed robbery is death.” Thus, there was sufficient evidence that “in addition to assisting in the commission of the armed robbery, defendant ‘performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commission of the killing of a human being’ and that he did so, at the very least, ‘with knowledge that death or great bodily harm was the probable result.’” As to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, it was not apparent from the record that either of his attorneys failed to conduct a proper investigation. Further, there was no evidence that “his brother or the other codefendants, if interviewed, would have in fact corroborated defendant’s version of events or otherwise given favorable evidence.” He claimed that he wanted to have them testify as to his lack of participation in the crimes, and that he “only arrived later. However, this defense was in fact submitted to the jury by way of defendant’s own statements made during his police interview.”