Sufficiency of the evidence to support an involuntary manslaughter conviction; People v Tims; Causation; People v Crumbley; “Gross negligence”; People v Head; Wantonness; Right to a public trial; People v Vaughn; Courtroom closure; MCR 8.116(D); Effect of COVID-19; AO 2020-6; 3d Circuit AO 2021-15; Whether the courtroom was fully or partially closed; Mistrial; People v Alter; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; Acquitted conduct; Medical examiner (ME)

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant-Sherrill’s convictions and sentences. The victim, H, was shot in the back of the neck during an altercation as she was driving. Defendant claimed he was trying to take the gun away from her but she killed herself. He was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, CCW, and felony-firearm. The trial court sentenced him to 2 years for felony-firearm, 10 to 15 for manslaughter, and 3 to 5 for CCW. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that there was insufficient evidence to find that his actions were the proximate cause of H’s death. Given the ME’s “testimony and the location of the physical evidence, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Sherrill, who was sitting in the backseat, shot [H] in the back of her neck, and that his actions were both the factual and proximate cause of her death.” The court also rejected his claim that there was insufficient evidence of gross negligence, noting “the evidence supported the jury finding that [he] handled the loaded firearm with wanton disregard for the consequences of the results and with reckless disregard for the safety of the other occupants of the vehicle.” As to his contention he was denied his right to a public trial because the courtroom was closed to spectators during his trial, the trial court “relied on 3d Circuit AO 2021-15 as the justification for closing the courtroom. In light of the carefully implemented procedures adopted to gradually reopen the courthouse to full capacity, Sherrill has not shown that the temporary limit on in-person spectators amounted to plain error affecting his substantial rights.” The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion for a mistrial. Given that the evidence in question (a photo of H’s body) “was generally duplicative of other evidence and the [trial] court instructed the jury to disregard” it and that it “mistakenly appeared on the screen, it was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to deny the motion for a mistrial.” As to his claim that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance by not objecting to statements made by the officers when interrogating him, he failed to “overcome the strong presumption that his lawyer’s performance ‘was born from sound trial strategy.’” Finally, it rejected his contention that his involuntary manslaughter sentence was not reasonable, noting the trial court “did not consider acquitted conduct when” it exceeded the guidelines, and its “reasons for departure” justified the departure and its extent. Affirmed.