Sufficiency of the evidence; AWIM; Intent; Self-defense; Jury instructions on AWIGBH & self-defense as to felony-firearm charges; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Declining to request additional jury instructions

The court held that the testimony was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to kill victims-H and B (his former wife and her boyfriend) to support his AWIM convictions. Also, the evidence did not plausibly suggest that he “had any lesser intent than murder, and an AWIGBH instruction would not have made sense in light of his theory of the case that he was the victim and had acted in self-defense.” Finally, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. He was also convicted of first-degree home invasion and felony-firearm. According to the testimony, he “entered the home uninvited in the early hours of the day while everyone was asleep, despite not being on speaking terms with [H], and apparently to the great distress of [witness-KE] despite defendant’s claim that he was there to pick her up. An altercation ensued, during which defendant pinned [H and B] down onto the couch.” At some point, H’s “gun was retrieved from where it was stored near the couch. [B] initially had control of the gun but dropped it, and defendant took control of it, then took hold of [B] and shot him twice in the head and once in the chest.” Defendant then followed H “into the kitchen, where she was later found with a gunshot wound to her head.” Also, witness-KH was “found to have been shot in the entryway to the kitchen. The fact that defendant affirmatively chased after [H] and shot her in the head, rather than fleeing after he shot [B], more than amply shows both an intent to kill [H] and a total absence of any plausible self-defense” as to H. The fact that he shot B “three times, including twice in the head at close range, strongly supports an intent to kill. Defendant was the initial aggressor by breaking into the home at a time everyone would be expected to be asleep, seemingly armed with both a facsimile firearm and the element of surprise, and he was able to pin down both” B and H. As such, he was not entitled “to self-defense, even if the victims produced a real gun first, unless there was no reasonable way for him to escape.” It was clear he “had the upper hand in the fight, and once he gained control of the gun, he could have thrown it across the room instead of using it. Even if it was somehow strictly necessary to fire the gun, shooting [B] three times shows excessive force. The fact that he then chased and shot [H] shows that he was not at all fearful, and fleeing was not his intent until after satisfying a desire to kill those” in the home. Affirmed.