Joint trial; MCL 768.5; MCR 6.121(C) & (D); People v Hana; Motion for a directed verdict; Larceny from a person (MCL 750.357); Intent; Self-defense; MCL 780.972

The court held that defendant failed to show “clearly, affirmatively, and fully that his substantial rights were prejudiced without separate trials[.]” Further, the trial court did not err in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the larceny from a person charge and on the basis of self-defense. Thus, the court affirmed his convictions of larceny from a person, felonious assault, and felony-firearm. His trial was held jointly with a codefendant (B), who “was charged with multiple offenses, including second-degree murder and” AWIM. Defendant unsuccessfully moved for a separate trial. On appeal, the court concluded “there was clearly judicial efficiency in trying the cases together. Holding separate trials for [B] and defendant would have required presenting almost all of the same witnesses and exhibits, which would have been a significant drain on the parties’ resources.” In addition, it found “there was little potential for confusion or prejudice stemming from the complexity or nature of the evidence, particularly when the trial court gave ample instructions to the jury that only [B], and not defendant, was charged with murder.” The court further noted both their “defenses involved claims of self-defense. Therefore, defendant failed to show that the tension between his and [B’s] defense was so strong that the jury would have had to believe one defendant at the expense of the other.” The court also determined that “the trial court properly instructed the jury, multiple times, to consider each defendant separately.” Thus, it concluded reversal was unwarranted. As to his motion for a directed verdict, the court noted that “the question of intent was for the jury to decide.” In addition, it could “reasonably be inferred from the testimony presented that defendant intended to deprive” one of the individuals involved in the incident (H) “of his gun permanently.” Several witnesses testified “about the events concerning defendant taking the gun. After defendant suddenly took the gun from [H], several people told” him to return it. But he kept it in his possession. Finally, the “jury, who was also able to see the surveillance footage, was in the best position to make credibility determinations and, here, the jury determined that defendant was not acting in self-defense.”