Sufficiency of the evidence for a second-degree murder conviction; Self-defense; Prosecutorial misconduct; Prearrest silence evidence & argument; Fifth Amendment right to remain silent; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to raise a futile objection; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 19; MCL 777.49(c)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s second-degree murder conviction. Also, because his “prearrest and pre-Miranda silence was not constitutionally protected,” he did not show “that the prosecutor violated his constitutional rights.” Thus, he “failed to establish a plain error” based on the prosecutor’s conduct, and was “not entitled to a new trial on this basis.” Further, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and the trial court did not clearly err in scoring 10 points for OV 19. He was also convicted of felony-firearm and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 50 to 90 years for murder, to be served consecutive to 2 years for the felony-firearm conviction. Defendant argued that the prosecution failed to disprove that he acted in self-defense. His “challenges, including what inferences could be drawn from the evidence, are related only to the weight and credibility of the evidence, which were issues for the jury to resolve.” The court noted that the “jury heard from prosecution eyewitnesses, defense witnesses, and observed video evidence that captured defendant’s movements before, during, and after the shooting. For the charged crime of first-degree premeditated murder, the jury was also instructed on the lesser offenses of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter, as the defense requested. The jury was free to accept or reject the theory of either party in light of the evidence presented at trial, and we will not interfere with the jury’s role of determining issues of weight and credibility.” In addition, his “reliance on his view of what inferences should be drawn from the evidence disregards that we are required to resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prosecution, . . . that this deferential standard of review is the same whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, . . . and that it is well established that ‘[c]ircumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime.’” The court also found that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to make futile objections. Affirmed.