-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

November 19, 2015 

v No. 322291 

Kent Circuit Court 

QUARAWN RASHAUD CAMP, LC No. 13-009323-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: MARKEY, P.J., and OWENS and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant appeals by right his jury trial convictions of assault with intent to rob while 

armed (AWIRA), MCL 750.89; carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), MCL 750.227; and 

possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b(1). We affirm. 

 Detrice Murdaugh and Demarrious Weems lived together in a house in Kentwood, 

Michigan. On July 20, 2013, Murdaugh’s brother, Demari Brown, visited them at that house. 

Murdaugh, Weems, and Brown planned to go to a barbeque together. Before they left, defendant 

sent Murdaugh a text message asking to purchase marijuana from him. Murdaugh agreed to the 

sale and waited for defendant to arrive. After waiting a while, Murdaugh, Weems, and Brown 

got into Murdaugh’s automobile, and Murdaugh began to drive to the barbeque. Shortly after 

leaving, they saw defendant walking toward the house, so Murdaugh turned around and returned 

to meet him. Murdaugh got out of the automobile and went into the house. Weems and Brown 

remained in the automobile, and defendant spoke with them briefly. Weems showed defendant a 

nine-millimeter Kel Tec firearm that he found in the woods near the house of a friend where a 

shooting had previously occurred. Defendant then went inside the house while Weems and 

Brown stayed in the automobile. 

 Murdaugh testified that he showed defendant the marijuana for sale; defendant then 

indicated that he did not have money and asked to have the marijuana but pay for it later. 

Murdaugh did not agree to this, and defendant subsequently pointed a firearm in his face and 

said “give me everything.” Murdaugh grabbed defendant and wrestled with him, trying to get 

the firearm away from him. Murdaugh was shot twice in the ribs and once in the back of his 

neck. Brown and Weems heard gunshots and shouts for help. Brown recognized the shouts as 

Murdaugh’s. Brown ran from the automobile into the house, and Weems ran to the side of the 

house. Weems loaded his Kel Tec, waited 30 or 40 seconds, and then went into the house. He 
-2- 

testified that he did not bring his Kel Tec into the house because he thought that he did not need 

it. Brown and Weems saw defendant and Murdaugh struggling with each other for the firearm 

that defendant had in his hand. Weems hit defendant until defendant dropped his firearm, and 

Weems dragged defendant out onto the sidewalk. 

 Defendant admitted that he shot Murdaugh, but claimed that he fired in self-defense. 

Defendant testified that while he was in the house, Murdaugh attacked him by surprise. They 

fought with each other for one or two minutes, then Weems, Brown, and a man with dreadlocks 

came running into the house. Defendant testified that he saw Weems with a firearm in his hand. 

Defendant testified that he pulled out his firearm and shot Murdaugh because he was 

“outnumbered,” and “there couldn’t be any more one-on-one fightin’ between me and him.” 

 Defendant first argues that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find him guilty of 

AWIRA or felony-firearm. When assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must 

view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational 

trier of fact could find that all of the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. People v Railer, 288 Mich App 213, 216-217; 792 NW2d 776 (2010). This 

Court “is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of 

the jury verdict. The scope of review is the same whether the evidence is direct or 

circumstantial.” People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000). It is for the jury, 

not this Court, to assess the credibility of witnesses. People v Eisen, 296 Mich App 326, 331; 

820 NW2d 229 (2012). 

 Defendant argues that because the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to prove 

its case, an inference of criminality may be drawn from such evidence only if it follows as an 

impelling certainty. This misstates the law: circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences 

drawn from it will support a conviction if the evidence proves the elements of the offense beyond 

a reasonable doubt. People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 196; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). 

 The elements of AWIRA, MCL 750.89, are as follows: “(1) an assault with force and 

violence; (2) an intent to rob or steal; and (3) the defendant’s being armed.” People v Akins, 259 

Mich App 545, 554; 675 NW2d 863 (2003). Proof of this offense requires evidence that the 

defendant intended to rob or steal. Id. 

 There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that defendant assaulted 

Murdaugh with force and violence because the circumstances indicate that defendant, by overt 

conduct, caused Murdaugh to reasonably believe that defendant would do what he threatened, 

i.e., shoot him. See People v Reeves, 458 Mich 236, 244; 580 NW2d 433 (1998) (noting that an 

assault is established when the victim reasonably apprehends an imminent battery). Murdaugh 

testified that defendant pointed a firearm in his face and said “give me everything.” Brown and 

Weems testified that they heard yells for help, heard gun shots, and saw defendant and 

Murdaugh wrestling with each other. There is no dispute that defendant pointed a gun at 

Murdaugh and shot him. There was also sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant 

intended to rob or steal from Murdaugh because he told Murdaugh to give him “everything” after 

Murdaugh showed defendant marijuana and defendant asked for marijuana without paying at that 

time. This supports that defendant intended to rob Murdaugh or steal his property, permanently 

depriving him of it. People v King, 210 Mich App 425, 428; 534 NW2d 534 (1995). 
-3- 

 Defendant nevertheless argues that the evidence was insufficient to find that defendant 

intended to rob or steal because Murdaugh testified that he did not know what exactly defendant 

wanted when he said “give me everything.” “Minimal circumstantial evidence is sufficient to 

prove an actor’s state of mind.” People v Ortiz, 249 Mich App 297, 301; 642 NW2d 417 (2001). 

When viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, Railer, 288 Mich App at 216, 

evidence that defendant pointed a firearm at Murdaugh and said “give me everything” after 

asking for marijuana was sufficient to allow the jury to find that defendant intended to steal or 

permanently deprive Murdaugh of his property, King, 210 Mich App at 428. Moreover, there is 

no dispute that defendant was armed during the incident. Thus, the evidence was sufficient for 

the jury to find all the essential elements of AWIRA were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 “The elements of felony-firearm are that the defendant possessed a firearm during the 

commission or attempt to commit a felony.” People v Davis, 216 Mich App 47, 53; 549 NW2d 

1 (1996). There is no dispute that defendant carried and had in his possession a firearm during 

the incident. Because the evidence was sufficient to find defendant guilty of AWIRA, which is a 

felony not excluded under MCL 750.227b(1), we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to 

find defendant guilty of felony-firearm. Id.; Railer, 288 Mich App at 217. 

 Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient because defendant did not admit to 

committing the crimes, and there was no scientific evidence suggesting guilt. There is no 

requirement that a defendant admit to a crime to be convicted of it, and there is no requirement 

for scientific evidence. Defendant also discusses at length in his brief on appeal various reasons 

why the testimony of Murdaugh, Weems, and Brown was not credible, and numerous alternative 

scenarios—all suggesting defendant’s innocence—that could be inferred from the evidence. But, 

it is for the jury, not this Court, to assess the credibility of witnesses. Eisen, 296 Mich App at 

331. “[I]f evidence is relevant and admissible, it does not matter that the evidence gives rise to 

multiple inferences or that an inference gives rise to further inferences.” People v Hardiman, 

466 Mich 417, 428; 646 NW2d 158 (2002). And, “the prosecution is only required to produce 

sufficient evidence to establish guilt; it is not required to negate every reasonable theory 

consistent with a defendant’s innocence.” Id. at 430. 

 Defendant next argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting photographs 

of Murdaugh’s wounds. Photographs are generally admissible as long as they are relevant, MRE 

401, and not unfairly prejudicial, MRE 403. People v Gayheart, 285 Mich App 202, 227; 776 

NW2d 330 (2009). “Photographs may properly be used to corroborate other evidence and are 

not excludable simply because they are cumulative of a witness’s oral testimony.” Id. In this 

case, the prosecution introduced six photographs of Murdaugh’s wounds. They depict Murdaugh 

unconscious and are not overly gruesome. The photographs are relevant because they helped 

prove the first and third elements of AWIRA—specifically, that defendant assaulted Murdaugh 

and that defendant was armed. Akins, 259 Mich App at 554. They also helped to prove the 

felony-firearm charge because they showed that defendant most likely possessed or carried a 

firearm while committing AWIRA. For the same reason, the photographs were relevant to prove 

the CCW charge. MCL 750.227(2). Moreover, the probative value of the photographs was not 

“substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . .” MRE 403. Therefore, the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them. Gayheart, 285 Mich App at 228. 
-4- 

 Defendant next alleges numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct. First, he argues 

that the prosecution committed misconduct by introducing the photographs of Murdaugh’s 

injuries. The test to determine if alleged prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal is whether, 

viewed in context, the conduct denied defendant a fair and impartial trial. People v Dobek, 274 

Mich App 58, 63-64; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). “The prosecution has wide latitude in arguing the 

facts and reasonable inferences, and need not confine argument to the blandest possible terms.” 

Id. at 66. Furthermore, a “prosecutor is entitled to attempt to introduce evidence that he 

legitimately believes will be accepted by the court, as long as that attempt does not prejudice the 

defendant.” People v Noble, 238 Mich App 647, 660-661; 608 NW2d 123 (1999). In this case, 

the prosecution acted in good faith in presenting relevant evidence, so there is no prosecutorial 

misconduct. Defendant’s argument that the prosecution improperly appealed to the jury’s 

sympathy by introducing the photographs fails because there is no indication that the prosecution 

made any appeal to the jury’s sympathy in introducing them. Defendant has not shown that the 

prosecution committed misconduct with regard to introducing the photographs into evidence. 

 Second, defendant argues that the prosecution committed misconduct when it argued that 

Murdaugh was threatened in the courtroom. Specifically, in its closing argument, the 

prosecution argued that Murdaugh was threatened outside the door of the courtroom before he 

testified in this case. In making this argument, the prosecution was referring to the following 

exchange that occurred at the beginning of the prosecution’s direct examination of Murdaugh: 

Q. Who was that out in the entryway between the two doors? 

A. I don’t know. 

Q. Who? 

A. I said I don’t know his name. 

Q. Do you know if he’s related to the defendant? 

A. I don’t know. They look alike. 

Q. What did he say to you? Call you a snitch? 

A. Yeah. I ain’t hear the words. 

Q. What did he say to you? 

A. I ain’t hear the words. 

 Although a prosecutor may not mischaracterize the evidence presented, the prosecutor 

has wide latitude in arguing reasonable inferences from the evidence. Dobek, 274 Mich App at 

66; People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 588; 629 NW2d 411 (2001). Clearly, Murdaugh did 

not testify that he was threatened. Nevertheless, it could reasonably be inferred the entryway 

comment contained a veiled threat such that it cannot be concluded that plain error occurred. 

People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Moreover, even if plain error 

occurred, there is no indication that this comment affected “the outcome of the lower court 
-5- 

proceedings.” Id. As discussed already, substantial evidence supported defendant’s convictions 

of AWIRA, CCW, and felony-firearm. Moreover, the trial court properly instructed the jury to 

consider only properly admitted evidence and that the attorneys’ argument were not evidence. 

“Jurors are presumed to follow their instructions, and instructions are presumed to cure most 

errors.” People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265, 279; 662 NW2d 836 (2003). Consequently, if

error occurred, it does not warrant reversal. Carines, 460 Mich at 763. For the same reasons, 

defendant’s arguments that misconduct occurred because the evidence was inadmissible must 

fail. Id.; Noble, 238 Mich App at 660-661. 

 Third, defendant argues that the prosecution committed misconduct when it argued that 

defendant had a self-serving memory. There is, however, abundant evidence in the record from 

which the prosecution could reasonably infer that defendant’s memory was self-serving. The 

prosecutor has wide latitude in arguing reasonable inferences from the evidence. Dobek, 274 

Mich App at 66; Watson, 245 Mich App at 588. No error occurred. 

 Fourth, defendant argues that the prosecution committed misconduct when it argued that 

this case was a matter of three witnesses testifying that events happened one way, and one 

witness testifying that events happened another way, which was not a fact in evidence. This 

argument is utterly without merit. The record is replete with testimony from Brown, Weems, 

and Murdaugh directly contradicting defendant’s testimony. Defendant has failed to establish 

plain error in this regard. Watson, 245 Mich App at 588; Carines, 460 Mich at 763-764. 

Fifth, defendant argues that the prosecution committed misconduct when it improperly 

appealed to jurors’ “civic duty” by telling them that the case needed to be resolved in the 

courtroom rather than in the streets. A prosecutor may not advocate that it is the jury’s civic 

duty to convict a defendant. People v Ackerman, 257 Mich App 434, 452; 669 NW2d 818 

(2003). A prosecutor’s comments must be viewed in context and evaluated in light of “the 

relationship they bear to the evidence admitted at trial.” Id. 

Murdaugh admitted in testimony that he did not want to testify and was only doing so at 

the behest of his probation officer. Although there is no direct evidence that Murdaugh wanted 

to inflict violence to settle the case, we conclude that the challenged argument by the prosecutor 

was a reasonable inference from the evidence at trial that Murdaugh, Weems, Brown, and 

defendant lived in a community where drugs, firearms, and violence were prevalent. Therefore, 

“the prosecutor’s remarks were not a call to convict as a matter of civic duty, but rather, 

argument based on the evidence and reasonable inferences” from the evidence presented at trial. 

Ackerman, 257 Mich App at 454. The prosecution was not “encouraging jurors to suspend their 

powers of judgment.” People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 455-456; 678 NW2d 631 (2004). 

Rather, the prosecution’s “remarks fell within the boundaries regarding the proper use of 

emotional language in prosecutorial argument, and did not deny defendant a fair trial[.]” 

Ackerman, 257 Mich App at 454. Moreover, even if improper, the comments did not affect the 

outcome so would not warrant reversal. Id. at 448-449; Abraham, 256 Mich App at 279. 

Sixth, defendant argues that the prosecution committed misconduct when it asked 

defendant his opinion regarding the truthfulness of Murdaugh’s testimony. It is generally 

improper for a witness to comment or provide an opinion on the credibility of another witness 

because the jury determines the credibility of witnesses. Dobek, 274 Mich App at 71. But 
-6- 

defendant fails to cite any instance where the prosecution asked him to comment on the 

credibility of any witness; therefore, he has not established plain error, and he has not shown that 

the prosecutor’s conduct denied him a fair trial. Dobek, 274 Mich App at 63-64. Further, 

defendant’s argument that the trial court interfered with the jury’s role as factfinder is 

abandoned. People v Payne, 285 Mich App 181, 188; 774 NW2d 714 (2009). 

Defendant next argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the 

prosecution’s errors. “To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant must, at a 

minimum, show that (1) counsel’s performance was below an objective standard of 

reasonableness and (2) a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have 

been different but for trial counsel’s errors.” Ackerman, 257 Mich App at 455. 

Defendant failed to identify the remarks that he believes counsel was ineffective for 

failing to object to, and has thus abandoned the issue. People v Kevorkian, 248 Mich App 373, 

389; 639 NW2d 291 (2001). To the extent that defendant argues that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to object to the prosecution’s conduct discussed supra, this argument fails. Defendant has 

established no errors of counsel and certainly none for which a reasonable probability exists that 

the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. Ackerman, 257 Mich App at 455. 

First, defendant has not overcome the presumption that counsel’s failure to object was reasonable 

trial strategy. People v Matuszak, 263 Mich App 42, 58; 687 NW2d 342 (2004). Second, as 

discussed already, an objection by counsel to the prosecution’s remarks would have been futile 

because they were not improper, and “[c]ounsel is not ineffective for failing to make a futile 

objection.” Thomas, 260 Mich App at 457. 

Finally, we find without merit defendant’s argument that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to call an expert witness to testify that defendant’s memory problems could have resulted 

from the beating defendant received from Weems and Brown. Again, defendant has failed to 

overcome the presumption that this was trial strategy. Payne, 285 Mich App at 190. More 

importantly, defendant has not established the factual predicate of his claim. Ackerman, 257 

Mich App at 455. In sum, defendant has not shown that counsel’s performance fell below an 

objective standard of reasonableness. Id. 

We affirm. 

/s/ Jane E. Markey 

/s/ Donald S. Owens 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause