Sufficiency of the evidence for an AWIGBH conviction; Identification testimony; People v Davis

Holding that the evidence of defendant’s identification as the shooter was sufficient to support his AWIGBH conviction, the court affirmed. He only challenged “the sufficiency of the evidence to support his identity as the shooter.” The victim (R) “unequivocally identified defendant as an occupant of the car from where the multiple gunshots fired upon him originated. In defendant’s written statement, which [he] essentially ignores in his analysis, he admitted that that he fired a rifle at [R]. In particular, defendant claimed that [R] was following him, ‘so [he] open fire. With a AK.’” The court concluded this “evidence, if believed, was sufficient to establish defendant’s identity as the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt.” The prosecution additionally “presented evidence that shell casings at the scene where [R] was shot matched a firearm found at a house connected to defendant. Also, there was evidence that, soon after the shooting, defendant, who was the sole occupant of the suspect vehicle, attempted to evade capture by leading the police on an eight-minute high-speed chase before bolting from the car and fleeing on foot. This evidence further enhanced [his] identity as the shooter.” The court noted he essentially asserted that the evidence was insufficient “because there was no direct evidence that he was the shooter, and he emphasize[d] the implausibility of his being able to both drive a car and shoot out of the window.” But his challenges went “to the weight and credibility of the evidence, which were issues for the jury to resolve. . . . The jury heard from witnesses and evaluated defendant’s written statement. The jury was free to accept or reject the theory of either party in light of the evidence presented at trial, and” the court would not interfere with its “role of determining issues of weight and credibility.”