People v. Armstrong

• Decision Date: 19 January 2023
• Docket Number: 359522
• Parties: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAHEIM RAHHMAN ARMSTRONG, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RAHEIM RAHHMAN ARMSTRONG, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 359522

Court of Appeals of Michigan

January 19, 2023

UNPUBLISHED

Jackson Circuit Court LC No. 17-005574-FC

Before: PATEL, P.J., and BORRELLO and SHAPIRO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right his jury-trial convictions of one count of first-degree felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b), and one count of carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b(1). The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to life in prison without parole for the first-degree felony-murder conviction and two years' imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm defendant's convictions and sentences, but remand for the ministerial task of correcting his sentencing documentation.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant's convictions stem from the murder of Ronald Demetrius Owens. Prettyattie Cooper testified that, on the night of the murder, defendant asked her for a ride to a party store. Cooper and defendant met an unnamed individual at the party store. The individual got in the back of Cooper's vehicle and discussed a drug sale with defendant. According to Cooper, after the individual handed defendant what appeared to be a bag of drugs, defendant drew a gun and pointed it at the individual. The individual threw something at defendant and jumped out of the vehicle.

Cooper next drove defendant to a second party store to pick up Orlando Cunningham. Cunningham testified that he and defendant had communicated on Facebook Messenger about finding someone to sell defendant cocaine. Cunningham testified that he messaged the victim, who agreed to sell cocaine to defendant. Cunningham directed Cooper to drive to the victim's mother's house. When they arrived, Cooper remained in her vehicle, while defendant and Cunningham exited to meet with the victim.

1

Defendant and Cunningham met with the victim in the middle of the street. After discussing the price of drugs with the victim, defendant reached down to his pocket. According to Cunningham, instead of money defendant pulled out a gun, pointed it at the victim's face, and shot him. Defendant ran back to Cooper's vehicle, and Cooper drove defendant away from the scene. Cunningham ran to his aunt's house and called his father. After his father advised him to go to the police, Cunningham went to the police station and gave a statement. At the station, he noticed that he lost both his cell phone and his wallet.

Police arrived on the scene of the shooting and found Cunningham's wallet and cell phone, as well as a baggie containing a suspected controlled substance. Cooper and defendant were arrested two days later. Two days before defendant's trial, Cooper pleaded guilty to manslaughter in exchange for her cooperation in testifying against defendant. Defendant brought a motion in limine seeking to exclude under MRE 404(b) Cooper's testimony regarding the alleged armed robbery committed the same night as the murder. The trial court allowed the testimony, determining that it was proof of defendant's intent to commit an armed robbery with respect to the murder victim, which was the predicate offense to the felony-murder charge.

II. OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE UNDER MRE 404(B)

Defendant first argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b). We disagree.^[1]

"MRE 404 governs the admissibility of other-acts evidence. The general rule under MRE 404(b) is that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible to prove a propensity to commit such acts." People v Denson, 500 Mich. 385, 397; 920 N.W.2d 306 (2017). MRE 404(b) provides in part:

(1) Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive opportunity, intent, preparation, scheme, plan, or system in doing an act, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident when the same is material, whether such other crimes, wrongs, or acts are contemporaneous with, or prior or subsequent to the conduct at issue in the case

To be admissible, other-acts evidence must (1) relevant to an issue other than propensity, (2) relevant under MRE 402 to an issue or fact of consequence at trial, (3) probative and not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice in accordance with MRE 403, and (4) subject to a

2

limiting instruction if such an instruction is requested. People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52, 55; 508 N.W.2d 114 (1993).

In this case, the evidence of the alleged armed robbery committed prior to the murder was offered for the proper purpose of showing defendant's intent as to the murder victim. This was relevant because the predicate offense to the felony-murder charge was attempted armed robbery, i.e., it was the prosecution's position that defendant intended to rob the murder victim. Armed robbery is a specific intent crime, requiring a showing that defendant intended to permanently deprive the victim of possession. People v Parker, 230 Mich.App. 337, 344; 584 N.W.2d 336 (1998). Because the robbery of the victim was not completed, the prosecution was required to show that defendant attempted to perpetrate the armed robbery. See MCL 750.316(1)(b). Defendant's intent with respect to the murder victim was therefore critical to determining whether the predicate-offense element of felony murder was satisfied.

Further, evidence of the alleged earlier robbery was highly probative of defendant's intent to commit an armed robbery against the murder victim. The uncharged conduct took place less than an hour before the charged offense and showed that defendant was acting pursuant to a common plan or scheme. In both instances, defendant discussed the exchange of money for drugs. When defendant was expected to take out money, he instead took out a gun. Thus, the uncharged armed robbery and the charged offense were...