Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v BRYAN VALENTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED October 28, 2010

No. 292825 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2008-223666-FC

Before: WILDER, P.J., and SERVITTO and SHAPIRO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of first-degree murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a), second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felonyfirearm), MCL 750.227b. Defendant was acquitted of first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2), and an accompanying charge of felony-firearm. Defendant was sentenced, as a fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to life imprisonment for the first-degree murder conviction, 60 to 90 years' imprisonment for the second-degree murder conviction, 10 to 20 years' imprisonment for the felon in possession of a firearm conviction, and two years' imprisonment for each felony-firearm conviction. We affirm defendant's convictions and sentences for first-degree murder, felon in possession of a firearm, and two counts of felonyfirearm, and we vacate defendant's convictions for second-degree murder and the accompanying felony-firearm conviction. Defendant's convictions stem from the shooting death of Laval Crawford outside of Crawford's home on September 13, 2008. Defendant was tried along with codefendants, Jean Carlos Cintron, Diego Galvan and Raul Galvan, but had a separate jury. Defendant, Cintron and Diego Galvan were convicted of Crawford's murder, while Raul Galvan was acquitted of the murder, but convicted of a charge of carrying a concealed weapon, stemming from his arrest. Defendant first claims that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of first-degree murder. We disagree. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this Court reviews the record de novo. People v Wilkens, 267 Mich App 728, 738; 705 NW2d 728 (2005). The elements of first-degree premeditated murder are an intentional killing of a human being with premeditation and deliberation. People v Gayheart, 285 Mich App 202, 210; 776 NW2d 330 (2009). Premeditation and deliberation require sufficient time between the initial -1-

homicidal intent and the actual killing for the defendant to take a second look. People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 229; 749 NW2d 272 (2008). Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence may constitute satisfactory proof of premeditation and deliberation. Id. To convict a defendant of aiding and abetting a crime, "a prosecutor must establish that (1) the crime charged was committed by the defendant or some other person; (2) the defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commission of the crime; and (3) the defendant intended the commission of the crime or had knowledge that the principal intended its commission at the time that [the defendant] gave aid and encouragement." People v Moore, 470 Mich 56, 67-68; 679 NW2d 41 (2004), quoting People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 768; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Crawford died as a result of sustaining multiple gunshot wounds, and the manner of his death was a homicide. The prosecutor sought to prove the first-degree murder charge under two theories: (1) defendant actually shot Crawford, and/or (2) defendant aided and abetted Crawford's killing. Just before the killing, an armed defendant and his codefendants went to Antoine Hurner's house looking for Crawford's home because Crawford had allegedly robbed defendant's younger brother, Cintron. Defendant told Hurner that Crawford owed him money. Defendant angrily left Hurner's home when Hurner would not provide him with Crawford's contact information. A short time later, defendant and his codefendants, all armed, forced their way into Crawford's home. According to Beatrice McCray, Crawford's girlfriend, defendant was the one who approached the home first and led the other men into the home. McCray further testified that defendant directed her to call Crawford and advise him to come home. Once Crawford arrived outside, the men went out through the front door and began firing their guns. Defendant was ultimately shot twice. It is not clear who fired the first shot that hit Crawford, but, according to eyewitness Teisha Johnson, codefendant Diego fired the second shot. Diego approached Crawford as he was crawling on the grass after having been shot, and shot Crawford, once more, at close range. Defendant stood nearby. Even assuming that defendant himself was not responsible for either gunshot that hit Crawford, there is sufficient evidence to convict him based on an aiding and abetting theory. Defendant was one of the armed men who forced his way into Crawford's home. Defendant and the group then came out of Crawford's home firing their guns in Crawford's vicinity. Several rounds of ammunition were recovered from the scene, some of which came from the type of gun that defendant was seen carrying. The fact that defendant led the shooter(s) inside Crawford's home, and he charged out of the home toward Crawford with a gun constitutes the performance of an act and/or the giving of encouragement that assisted the commission of the killing. Further, a rational jury could infer that defendant participated in the crime with knowledge of the shooter's intent to kill.1 Again, defendant led the group of armed men who forced their way into Crawford's home. The evidence suggested that defendant was intent on

1

The jury was free to infer the shooter's malice from his use of a deadly weapon. People v Jones, 95 Mich App 390, 395; 290 NW2d 154 (1980).

-2-

finding Crawford because Crawford had robbed defendant's brother of approximately $5,000. Shewana Hopkins, who was inside Crawford's home at the time of the shooting, told the investigating officer that the men in the house "made a comment that they were

Download PEOPLE OF MI V BRYAN VALENTIN.pdf

Michigan Law