Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v

UNPUBLISHED January 10, 1997

No. 185261 Wayne County LC No. 94-013820

ROBERT YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Corrigan, P.J., and Sullivan* and T.G. Hicks,** JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals by right his jury trial convictions of first-degree murder, MCL 750.316; MSA. 28.548, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). The court sentenced defendant to natural life in prison for the first-degree murder conviction and a consecutive term of five years in prison for the felony-firearm conviction. We affirm. Defendant first argues the trial court erred by permitting the prosecutor to elicit testimony at trial from which the jury might have inferred that the police department possessed defendant's "mug shot," thus suggesting that defendant had a prior criminal history. The term "mug shot" was never used at trial. Defendant's picture never was referred to as a "mug shot" or admitted into evidence. No manifest injustice occurred. People v Eaton, 114 Mich App 330, 337; 319 NW2d 344 (1982). Absent manifest injustice, a party opposing the admission of evidence must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection on appeal. MRE 103(a)(1); People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 545-546, 553; 520 NW 2d 123 (1994). Defendant failed to object below to the testimony he now argues is improper. Similarly, defendant did not object to witness McGuffie's statement that she was glad she broke up with defendant because defendant beat her up. Moreover, the answer was unresponsive. Finally, defense counsel, not the prosecutor, elicited the testimony that the van in which defendant arrived had been stolen. Because no manifest injustice will result from our failure to review this issue, we decline to do so.

* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. ** Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1

Defendant next argues that his convictions are based upon insufficient evidence. We disagree. Viewing the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we must determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), modified on other grounds 441 Mich 1201 (1993). To convict a defendant of first-degree murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant intentionally killed the victim and that the act of homicide was premeditated and deliberate. People v Anderson, 209 Mich App 527, 537; 531 NW2d 780 (1995). The elements of premeditation and deliberation require that the defendant had an opportunity for a second look. The factfinder may infer the elements from the circumstances surrounding the homicide. Id. Premeditation may be established by evidence of: (1) the prior relationship of the parties; (2) the defendant's actions before the killing; (3) the circumstances surrounding the killing itself; and (4) the defendant's conduct after the killing. Id. On September 17, 1994, defendant, mindful that Samuel Ricardo Haywood would be present, attended a gathering at the residence of Dorothy McGuffie, with whom defendant had been involved romantically. Shortly after his arrival, defendant discharged his firearm into the ground outside of McGuffie's residence and then reloaded the gun. Defendant argued with and struck McGuffie once he was inside the residence. With the aid of a companion, defendant then identified Haywood as the person who had telephoned McGuffie during defendant's previous visit, and as the person who had questioned the gunshot that defendant fired that evening. Gun in hand, defendant stated to his companion, "Man, let's do this," left the residence and shot Haywood in the back as he fled; Haywood died from the wounds. During a telephone conversation with McGuffie the next day, defendant admitted that he "wasn't going to kill him [Haywood] at first but he ran." Viewing defendant's initial acts of discharging the firearm and reloading it, his statement while he was armed with a loaded firearm

Download PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT YOUNG.pdf

Michigan Law