People v. Evans

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARQUIS TERRELL-LAMAR EVANS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 353746

Court of Appeals of Michigan

November 18, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

Monroe Circuit Court LC No. 19-245051-FC.

Before: Elizabeth L. Gleicher, P.J., and Kirsten Frank Kelly and Ronayne Krause, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH), MCL 750.84 felon in possession of a firearm (felon-in-possession), MCL 750.224f, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. He was sentenced, as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to 60 to 90 years' imprisonment for the second-degree murder conviction, 12 to 40 years' imprisonment for the AWIGBH conviction, 5 to 15 years' imprisonment for the felon-in-possession conviction, and 24 months' imprisonment for each of the felony-firearm convictions. Finding no errors warranting reversal, we affirm defendant's convictions and sentences.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant's convictions arise from the shooting of victims, Meagin Robison and Gregory James, following a disagreement over a drug transaction. Robison was shot in the forearm and survived. James was shot in the neck and died from the wound.

For a three month period, Robison purchased crack cocaine and sometimes marijuana from defendant. At times, she made five purchases of cocaine in a day. She lived within two blocks of defendant, and the transactions would occur at various locations. Robison described her relationship with defendant as amicable. Although she had seen defendant with a firearm she did not fear him. In fact, if defendant came to her home to conduct a drug transaction, she would prepare a meal for defendant to take with him. If Robison believed that defendant "shorted" her during a drug sale, he would make up for any loss.

Specifically, on January 22, 2019, Robison and James purchased crack cocaine from defendant for $40. The purchase occurred at defendant's home, and defendant angrily lectured Robison about the manner James parked his truck because it called attention to the home. Upon returning home and believing they did not get their money's worth, Robison and James attempted to contact defendant with telephone calls and text messages. Defendant responded by text message that they should not come back to his house because it would not be in their best interest, and they would end up on "the news." Nevertheless, Robison and James left their house and walked to defendant's home. Before leaving, James inserted a baseball bat into the sleeve of his jacket. However, Robison testified that the baseball bat was not visible and James took the bat because the neighborhood was not safe. They chose not to drive to defendant's home because of his prior complaint about the manner in which they parked their vehicle.

When they arrived at defendant's house, Robison and James continued to try and contact defendant by telephone and text messages. When the victims saw defendant's back door crack open, they walked up the sidewalk toward his porch. Robison claimed the pair walked calmly toward defendant's door. She testified that they never reached the area of defendant's porch. However, defendant opened the door, threw a cooking pot at James, and began firing his weapon. Robison was shot in the left arm. James fell on his back and was bleeding from his neck. Robison tried to apply aid to James and call 911. Defendant went back into his home.

On the contrary, defendant testified that he acted in self-defense. Specifically, defendant denied that he shorted the victims of any drugs. He claimed that drug addicts immediately view their purchase and that the victims effectively wanted a bigger "high." When he was approached by the victims, Robison yelled at defendant, but defendant kept his voice low to avoid attracting attention. To end the confrontation, he threw a pot at the victims. Because this act did not dissuade them, he fired a shot from his gun at the ground, but James continued to advance. Defendant claimed that he saw James pull an object out of his coat and, fearing for his life, began shooting. After the shots were fired, defendant fled the scene and was arrested approximately eight days later. Defendant was able to evade the police because he sought the assistance of friends and customers and used their cellphones to avoid being tracked by the police.

Despite defendant's testimony and claim of self-defense, the jury convicted defendant of second-degree murder, AWIGBH, felony-firearm, and felon-in-possession. As relevant here, the trial court sentenced defendant to 60 to 90 years' imprisonment for the second-degree murder conviction and 12 to 40 years' imprisonment for the AWIGBH conviction. This appeal followed.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Defendant first contends the evidence was insufficient to convict him, because plaintiff could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did not act in self-defense.^[1] We disagree.

This Court reviews questions of constitutional law de novo. People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich. 575, 579; 640 N.W.2d 246 (2002). "Claims of insufficient evidence are reviewed de novo." People v Kloosterman, 296 Mich.App. 636, 639; 823 N.W.2d 134 (2012). "In determining whether the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, an appellate court is required to take evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor." People v Tennyson, 487 Mich. 730, 735; 790 N.W.2d 354 (2010). "[T]he question on appeal is whether a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." People v Hardiman, 466 Mich. 417, 421; 646 N.W.2d 158 (2002). "All conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the prosecution and [this Court] will not interfere with the jury's determinations regarding the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses." People v Unger, 278 Mich.App. 210, 222; 749 N.W.2d 272 (2008).

When a criminal defendant asserts a claim of self-defense, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt defendant did not act in self-defense. People v Stevens, 306 Mich.App. 620, 630; 858 N.W.2d 98 (2014). The self-defense right is codified under the Self-Defense Act, MCL 780.971 et seq., which states, in pertinent part:

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual. [MCL 780.972(1); see also People v Wilder, 307 Mich.App. 546, 562; 861 N.W.2d 645 (2014) (stating the Self-Defense Act requires "an honest and reasonable belief that death or great bodily harm is imminent.").]

To support his argument that the jury did not have sufficient evidence to convict in light of his self-defense theory, defendant selectively cites to his own testimony to assert there was no evidence to refute the assertion that James was charging toward him with a baseball bat. In other words, the only evidence defendant presented to demonstrate the necessary use of force was his own testimony. In fact, defendant completely ignores the testimony refuting the necessity of the use of force.

Robison, who witnessed first-hand the events leading up to and including the shooting, testified that while James was carrying a baseball bat, the purpose was not to confront defendant with it. Rather, James was carrying the baseball bat because the neighborhood was dangerous, and they were walking, not driving, to defendant's house. Robison also testified that defendant warned her and James not to come over, stating it would not be in their best interest because they would "make the news." With respect to the shooting itself, Robison was insistent that James never took the baseball bat out of his sleeve before defendant began shooting. Instead, she claimed the baseball bat came out of James's sleeve after he was shot in the neck and collapsed. This was corroborated by an eye witness, Carlton Smith, who stated he never saw anything in James's hand, but a cellular telephone. Robison also stated she never had anything in her hands but a drinking cup, a fact that was confirmed by defendant's testimony.

The jury, presented with conflicting testimony on whether James made any threatening advance toward defendant, was entitled to believe the prosecutor's witnesses and not defendant. See People v Walker, 330 Mich.App. 378, 385; 948 N.W.2d 122 (2019) ("[T]he jury was not obligated to accept defendant's testimony, but rather was only precluded from speculating."). In addition to Robison's testimony, the jury heard testimony from Dr Carl Schmidt, the medical examiner, who stated that the graze wounds on James's body were consistent with James bending over while collapsing. To be fair, he also stated the wounds were consistent with crouching and charging defendant. Dr. Schmidt further testified there was no evidence that the gun was fired at James from a close distance, discounting the theory that James was charging at defendant. Thus, defendant's contention that the jury ignored the evidence of self-defense is not consistent with the record. Indeed, defendant's text messages cautioned the victims about the consequences of their complaint about the quantity of the crack cocaine received. Additionally, the jury asked the...