People v. Young
| Docket Number | 351793 |
| Decision Date | 21 December 2021 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KENNETH ARLELL YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 19-000964-02-FC
Before: Boonstra, P.J., and Gleicher and Letica, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, [1] possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b, and tampering with evidence in a criminal case for which the maximum term of imprisonment for the violation is more than 10 years, MCL 750.483a(5)(a) and (6)(b).[2], [3] Defendant was sentenced to 15 to 30 years' imprisonment for his second-degree murder conviction to be served consecutively with 2 years' imprisonment for his felony-firearm conviction, but concurrently with 1 to 10 years' imprisonment for his tampering with evidence conviction. We affirm.
On November 29, 2018, defendant left his apartment for a brief period, before returning home. When he arrived, he noticed his door was ajar and suspected someone might be inside. When defendant attempted to push his door open, he felt some resistance and heard someone tell him to get back. Defendant fled the unit of his apartment building and called Kenneth Gibson for assistance. While awaiting Kenneth Gibson's arrival, defendant patrolled the outside of his apartment unit with his gun. Defendant even fired one shot into the air, purportedly as a warning to the person he found in his apartment.
Eventually Kenneth Gibson was dropped off by someone driving a white car. Security camera footage from a nearby liquor store and restaurant showed Kenneth Gibson getting out of the car, crossing the street to speak with defendant, and defendant going to his car and opening the trunk. In a later interview with police, defendant stated he retrieved another gun from his trunk, gave one of the loaded guns to Kenneth Gibson, and kept one for himself. Defendant and Kenneth Gibson remained outside until defendant's cousins, Robert Gibson and Ebonique Gibson, arrived in a gray minivan, which is visible on the security camera footage.
According to defendant, all four individuals then went inside defendant's unit of the apartment building, which contained four separate apartments. Defendant checked his apartment first, which no longer had anyone inside, and defendant did not notice anything missing. Defendant and his family members then went door-to-door trying to find the person who had been in defendant's apartment, kicking all three other apartment doors in the unit. One of the doors broke open, but revealed no one inside. When they reached the apartment in which the victim was squatting, the victim answered his door in response to defendant's kick.
Defendant and his family members held the victim at gunpoint while defendant walked through the victim's apartment, looking for anyone else inside or anything that might have been taken from defendant's apartment. Defendant noticed his neighbor, Mr. Cass, arriving home at the time. Defendant went outside to speak with Cass, hoping to assure him everything was fine. While outside, defendant heard a gunshot inside the apartment, which was Kenneth Gibson fatally shooting the victim with the gun provided by defendant.
The victim fled, jumped out of the window in his apartment, and ran across the street to Spotlight Liquor Store. The victim later died from the gunshot wound. Defendant told police he heard from Kenneth Gibson that the victim had been shot. Defendant responded by removing his television and PlayStation video game console from his apartment, stowing his gun in his trunk, and driving away. Defendant, Kenneth Gibson, Robert, and Ebonique all met up at a separate location and decided they would create a false story and lie to the police.
Defendant initially told police he had an altercation with the victim when defendant first noticed someone was inside his apartment. Only after being confronted with law enforcement's knowledge of significant facts gleaned from the surveillance footage and evidence inside the apartment building did defendant relay the version of facts summarized above. And even while in the interrogation room with his pretrial counsel, defendant deleted probative information from his cell phone.
The jury found defendant guilty of second-degree murder and felony-firearm on a theory of aiding and abetting, and guilty of destruction of evidence for deleting relevant information from his cell phone. This appeal followed. While it was pending, defendant twice moved this Court to remand for a Ginther[4] hearing related to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which we denied without prejudice.[5] The case is now before us for plenary review.
Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of second-degree murder. We disagree.
"We review de novo a challenge on appeal to the sufficiency of the evidence." People v. Henry, 315 Mich.App. 130, 135; 889 N.W.2d 1 (2016), quoting People v. Ericksen, 288 Mich.App. 192, 195; 793 N.W.2d 120 (2010). "To determine whether the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor and determine 'whether a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" People v. Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich. 669, 676; 837 N.W.2d 415 (2013), quoting People v. Tennyson, 487 Mich. 730, 735; 790 N.W.2d 354 (2010). "The standard of review is deferential: a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict." People v. Bailey, 310 Mich.App. 703, 713; 873 N.W.2d 855 (2015), quoting People v. Nowack, 462 Mich. 392, 400; 614 N.W.2d 78 (2000).
There is sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict where "a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Tennyson, 487 Mich. at 735, quoting People v. Hardiman, 466 Mich. 417, 421; 646 N.W.2d 158 (2002). "The prosecution need not negate every reasonable theory of innocence; instead, it need only prove the elements of the crime in the face of whatever contradictory evidence is provided by the defendant." People v. Mikulen, 324 Mich.App. 14, 20; 919 N.W.2d 454 (2018). "Circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences that arise from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of the crime." People v. Blevins, 314 Mich.App. 339, 357; 886 N.W.2d 456 (2016). Any and all conflicts that arise in the evidence must be resolved "in favor of the prosecution." Mikulen, 324 Mich.App. at 20. "It is for the trier of fact, not the appellate court, to determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and to determine the weight to be accorded those inferences." Hardiman, 466 Mich. at 428.
Defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence as related to his second-degree murder conviction. Recently, we discussed the necessary elements for a second-degree murder conviction:
The elements of second-degree murder are "(1) a death, (2) the death was caused by an act of the defendant, (3) the defendant acted with malice, and (4) the defendant did not have lawful justification or excuse for causing the death." People v. Smith, 478 Mich. 64, 70; 731 N.W.2d 411 (2007). "Malice is defined as 'the intent to kill, the intent to cause great bodily harm, or the intent to do an act in wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of such behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm.'" People v. Werner, 254 Mich.App. 528, 531; 659 N.W.2d 688 (2002) (citation omitted). Second-degree murder evolved from common-law murder, under which "malice aforethought" was understood for centuries to be the "grand criterion" distinguishing murder from less "wicked" homicides. People v. Hansen, 368 Mich. 344, 350-351; 118 N.W.2d 422 (1962) (citation and quotation marks omitted); People v. Mesik (On Reconsideration), 285 Mich.App. 535, 544-547; 775 N.W.2d 857 (2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). [People v. Baskerville, 333 Mich.App. 276, 284-285; 963 N.W.2d 620 (2020).]
In this case, defendant was charged under a theory of aiding and abetting Kenneth Gibson's murder of the victim. "Every person concerned in the commission of an offense, whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense or procures, counsels, aids, or abets in its commission may hereafter be prosecuted, indicted, tried and on conviction shall be punished as if he had directly committed such offense." MCL 767.39. "The phrase 'aids or abets' is used to describe any type of assistance given to the perpetrator of a crime by words or deeds that are intended to encourage, support, or incite the commission of that crime." People v. Moore, 470 Mich. 56, 63; 679 N.W.2d 41 (2004).
The general rule is that, to convict a defendant of aiding and abetting a crime, the 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. [Id. at 67-68, quoting People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 768; 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999).]
Defendant's challenge under the sufficiency of the evidence focuses on the element of intent. Specifically, defendant asserts there was no evidence that he intended...
To continue reading
Request your trial