-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 12, 2015

v No. 313857 Macomb Circuit Court KENISHA LATORI FAISON, LC No. 2012-000991-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: B ECKERING , P.J., and C AVANAGH and S AAD , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant appeals her jury trial convictions for: (1) aiding o r abetting the solicitation of murder under MCL 750.157b and MCL 767.39; and (2) conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder under MCL 750.157a and MCL 750.316(1)(a). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case involves a love triangle that involved codefendant D eon Taylor, 1 defendant, and defendant’s half-sister, Ki a Faison. Taylor had a longstan ding relationship with Kia, and is the father of one of her children. In 2005, Taylor was convict ed of sexually abusing Kia’s niece and sent to prison. Nonetheless, Kia resumed her relationship with Taylor after his release, and the couple shared a residence. During this time period, Taylor also began a sexual relationship with defendant, which caused tension between her and Kia. In 2 012, Taylor was charged with molesting Kia’s daughter, a nd incarcerated once again.

While in the Macomb County Jail, Taylor approached a former as sociate, and asked him to kill Kia and her two childre n so that Kia’s daughter could n ot accuse him of molesting her.

1 A jury convicted Taylor, who was tried separately from defenda nt, of solicitation to commit murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murde r. Our Court affirmed his convictions in People v Taylor , unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issue d March 25, 2014 (Docket No. 313677). The opinion also contains further information on the factual background of this case.-2- The former associate informed the Macomb County Sheriff’s Depar tment of Taylor’s plans, and the Department gave him a small microphone to wear for subseque nt meetings with Taylor. In February 2012, Taylor and the info rmant had a detailed and grap hic discussion about how best to commit the murders. They also discussed payment (which would c ome from a large life insurance policy Kia had purchased, and of which Taylor was sup posedly the beneficiary), 2 and Taylor stressed that defendant w ould assist the informant by pr oviding keys to Kia’s house and documentation related to th e life insurance policy.

At the instruction of the sheri ff’s department, the informant contacted defendant via a cell phone number that Taylor supplied. He arranged to meet with de fendant in the jail lobby, before defendant visited Taylor. At th e meeting, which was monitored by the sheriff’s department, 3 defendant and the informant discussed the logistics of carrying out the murders, 4 and defendant expressed approval of the plan to kill her half-sister and her niece and nephew. 5 She also stated that she would accompany defendant into the home prior to the s hootings, and help him retrieve documentation on the life insurance policy. At some point duri ng the meeting, defendant removed three keys from a ring an d handed them to the informant , and explained which doors they opened at Kia’s home.

The prosecutor subsequently charged defendant with: (1) aiding or abetting the solicitation of murder under MCL 750.157b and MCL 767.39; and ( 2) conspiracy to commit

2 Kia testified that she actually removed Taylor as a beneficiar y of her life insu rance policy in January 2012, a fact of which Taylo r and defendant were apparen tly not aware.

3 The prosecutor introduced the r ecording of the informant’s mee ting with defendant as evidence, and played the audio rec ording for the jury.

4 Among other things, defendant explained the layout of Kia’s ho use to the informant, and told him of the family’s sleeping ar rangements and schedule. Defend ant also made suggestions about how best to carry out the murders, and told defendant to: (1) t ie Kia’s legs together because she practiced kickboxing; (2) exercis e discretion at all times beca use of “nosey” neighbors and the proximity of the Eastpointe poli ce station to Kia’s home; (3) n ot park his car in Kia’s driveway.

5 Specifically, the informant tes tified that he asked defendant whether she knew that he intended to murder Kia and her family, a nd defendant explained that she approved of his plans. The informant and defendant went on to discuss the potential murder s in great detail, which did not dissuade defendant, as noted, from offering her own suggestions on how best to carry out the shootings. The prosecution also presented t he jury a handwritten letter be aring defendant’s signature, and with her return address. Guard s found the document in a search of Taylor’s cell effected soon after defendant told Taylor duri ng a jail visit that she had se nt him a letter and some photographs. In the letter, defendant states: I will never leave your side. . . . I’m going to have someone t ake care of Kia. I promise you that. She means nothing to me. And she is a liar, sneaky and don’t deserve to be living [ sic]. I’m just so out raged about everyth ing.-3- first-degree premeditated murder under MCL 750.157a and MCL 750 .316(1)(a). At trial, the jury heard exhaustive testimony from the informant, Kia, and de fendant, who denied that she approved of the plan to murder her family members. A detective with the sheriff’s department testified to his work with the i nformant, and voiced his belief that the informant saved the lives of Kia and her children. He also informed the jury that the sh eriff’s department possessed numerous audio recordings of week ly visits between Taylor and d efendant in which defendant expressed approval of the mur ders and a willingness to help the informant facilitate them. 6

In October 2012, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. On appeal, she argues that: the prosecution presented insuffi cient evidence to sustain her conviction of solicitation to commit murder. In her standard 4 brief, defendant also makes the unsu pported assertions that: (1) the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to sustain her conv iction of conspiracy to commit murder; and (2) she was denied due process because the trial co urt issued improper jury instructions, to which he r counsel did not object.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A challenge to the sufficiency of evidence is reviewed de novo

. People v Solmonson
, 261 Mich App 657, 661; 683 NW2d 761 (2004). When it determines whether sufficient evidence exists “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 Nowack , 462 Mich 392, 399-400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000) (internal quotation and c itation omitted). “It is for the trier of fact, not the appellate court, to determine what infer ences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and to determine the we ight to be accorded those infer ences.” People v Hardiman , 466 Mich 417, 428; 646 NW2d 158 (2002).

III. ANALYSIS

Criminal solicitation of mur der under MCL 750.157b is a “speci fic intent crime” that

. . . requires proof that the de fendant intended that a murder would occur. Solicitation to commit murder occurs when (1) the solicitor pur posely seeks to have someone killed and (2) tries to engage someone to do the k illing. Solicitation is complete when the solicitation is made. A cont ingency in the plan may affect whether the victim will be murdered, but does not ch ange the solicitor’s intent that the victim be murdered. Actual incitem ent is not necessary for conviction. [ People v Crawford , 232 Mich App 608, 616; 591 NW2d 669 (1998).]

“To place the issue of aiding and abetting before a trier of f act, the evidence need only tend to establish that more than one person committed the crime , and that the role of a defendant

6 The prosecutor introduced the audio recordings of these visits between defendant and Taylor as evidence and played them for the jury.-4- charged as an aider and abetto r amounts to something less than the direct commission of the offense.” People v Vaughn , 186 Mich App 376, 382; 465 NW2d 365 (1990). “The phrase ‘aid s or abets’” encompasses “any type of assistance given to the per petrator of a crime by words or deeds that are intended to encourage, support, or incite the co mmission of that crime.” People v Moore , 470 Mich 56, 63; 679 NW2d 41 (2004). “In determining whether a defendant assisted in the commission of the crime, the amount of advice, aid, or enco uragement is not material if it had the effect of inducing the commission of the crime.” Id. at 71. “[W]hether the defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted” must be det ermined “on a case-by-case basis.” Id . (internal quotation and citations omitted). “An aider and ab ettor’s state of mind may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances.” People v Carines , 460 Mich 750, 758; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

Here, the underlying crimes that defendant is accused of aidin g and abetting—solicitation to commit murder and conspiracy to commit murder—were unquestio nably committed by Taylor, who “engaged” the infor mant to murder Kia and her child ren. 7 Crawford , 232 Mich App at 616. The prosecution presente d ample evidence that defendan t also solicited the informant to commit murder, by aiding and abetting Taylor’s efforts to do so . Again, she met with the informant in the Macomb County Ja il, discussed the logistics of the murder, and indicated her approval for the violent plans—demonstrating intent to have Kia and her children killed. Carines , 460 Mich at 758. She also provi ded the informant with keys t o Kia’s home, and offered to assist him in obtaining documentation on the life insurance policy with which Taylor planned to pay the informant for carrying out the killings. In additio n, she “encourage[d] [and] support[ed]” Taylor in his plans to engage the informant to mur der Kia and her children. Moore
, 470 Mich at 63.

The prosecution therefore provided more than sufficient eviden ce for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of aiding a nd abetting solicitation to commit murder pursuant to MCL 750.157b. 8 Nowack , 462 Mich at 399-400.

7 As noted in n 1, see our Court’s opinion affirming Taylor’s co nvictions for further background on his efforts to have Kia and her children murdered. People v Taylor , unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeal s, issued March 25, 2014 (Docket N o. 313677).

8 Defendant’s arguments in her standard 4 brief are frivolous an d unsupported. As recounted above, the prosecution provided substantial evidence that defen dant participated in a conspiracy to commit first-degree, premeditated murder. Defendant’s argum ent to the contrary is disjointed and unsupported. A litigant may not merely announce his positi on and leave it to our Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims. People v Watson , 245 Mich App 572, 587; 629 NW2d 411 (2001). As for her unpreserved complaint regarding the jury instruction s, the record indicates that the trial court, though it made a minor mistake in its explication of renunciation as affirmative defense to the charge of solicitation in its preliminary instru ctions, correctly recited the elements of renunciation during the final jury instructions. Jury instr uctions are not erroneous if they fairly present to the jury the issues to be tried and sufficien tly protect the defendant’s rights.-5- Affirmed.

/s/ Jane M. Beckering /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh /s/ Henry William Saad

People v Knapp , 244 Mich App 361, 376; 624 NW2d 227 (2001). The trial court’ s instructions achieved both objectives and defendant’s assertions otherwise a re without merit. Defendant’s counsel cannot be held ineffective for failure to make a meritl ess objection. People v Ericksen
, 288 Mich App 192, 201; 793 NW2d 120 (2010).