Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v CHRISTIAN D. MCNEIL, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED November 30, 1999

No. 209231 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 96-146514 FC

Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Murphy and Griffin, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his jury trial convictions of first-degree murder (premeditated), MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). Defendant was sentenced to life without parole for his first degree murder conviction and two years in prison for his felony-firearm conviction. We affirm. Defendant's sole issue on appeal is that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to convict defendant of first-degree, premeditated murder. Defendant specifically contends that the prior actions and derogatory words directed toward defendant by the victim and his friends were sufficient provocation to reduce defendant's actions from first-degree murder to second-degree murder. We disagree. When determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748, amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992); People v Patterson, 428 Mich 502, 514-515; 410 NW2d 733 (1987). "In order to convict a defendant of first-degree murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant intentionally killed the victim and that the act of killing was premeditated and deliberate." People v Anderson, 209 Mich App 527, 537; 531 NW2d 780 (1995). Premeditation requires that sufficient time must have elapsed to allow the defendant to take a "second look." Id.; People v Plummer, 229 Mich App 293, 300; 581 NW2d 753 (1998). Factors relevant to establishing premeditation include (1) the previous relationship between the defendant and the victim; (2) the defendant's actions before and after the crime; and (3) the -1

circumstances of the killing itself, including the weapon used and the location of the wounds inflicted. Id. at 300. As the Plummer Court further explained, supra at 301-302: When the evidence establishes a fight and then a killing, there must be a showing of "a thought process undisturbed by hot blood" in order to establish first-degree, premeditated murder. [People v] Morrin, [31 Mich App 301; 187 NW2d 434 (1971)], supra at 329-330. The critical inquiry is not only whether the defendant had the time to premeditate, but also whether he had the capacity to do so. "Without such evidence, the sequence of events is as consistent with an unpremeditated killing

Download PEOPLE OF MI V CHRISTIAN D MCNEIL.pdf

Michigan Law