Opinion ID: 2620274
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Third, we address Peoples’s claim that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove premeditation. We review insufficiency of the evidence claims under § 2254 solely to determine whether “there was sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of the facts to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 312-13, 315, 320-21 (1979). We may grant the writ if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that “no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” on every element of the crime. Id. at 319, 324. The question is determined by looking to the applicable state law. Id. In Michigan, first degree premeditated murder requires proof that the defendant intentionally killed the victim and that the act was premeditated and deliberate. People v. Kelly, 588 N.W.2d 480, 488 (Mich. 1998); see also Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316(1)(a). This requires “sufficient time to allow the defendant to take a second look.” Kelly, 588 N.W.2d at 488. Because the Michigan courts did not address this claim on the merits, we again use the modified form of AEDPA deference. Hawkins, 547 F.3d at 546. Peoples argues that the testimony that he “lay in waiting” for Clark cannot be sufficient evidence to prove premeditation because the testimony is that he planned only to rob him. We agree, but this is not the only testimony from which a rational jury could infer premeditation. Both witnesses testified that the first shot was fired while Clark fought his attackers, and that two shots were fired after Clark ran away. A rational jury could infer that Peoples formed the requisite intent as Clark ran away. Peoples argues that there was not sufficient time for premeditation between shots, nor did the prosecutor present evidence of any length of time between the shots. This argument ignores Michigan law. While Michigan courts have not stated precisely how much time is “sufficient,” it is clear that the amount of time may be very short and that No. 11-2161 Peoples v. Lafler Page 20 it may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. For example, in Kelly, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that where the victim was stabbed, suffered blunt force trauma to the head, and strangled, the defendant had enough opportunity to reflect upon his actions in between each method of assault. 588 N.W.2d at 488. In People v. Johnson, the Michigan Supreme Court held that evidence of manual strangulation can be used, in combination with evidence of defensive wounds, to show premeditation. 597 N.W.2d 73, 79 (Mich. 1999). Most on point is the case of People v. Waters, in which the Michigan Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence of premeditation where the defendant held the gun with both hands and where testimony suggested a time-lapse of between two and four seconds between shots. 324 N.W.2d 564, 567 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). While “some interval” is necessary, it appears that even an interval as short as “one second” will do. See People v. Tilley, 273 N.W.2d 471, 474 (Mich. 1979); see also People v. Berthiaume, 229 N.W.2d 497 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975) (noting that “mere[] seconds” may be sufficient time for a second look). Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, according to testimony from Harris and Powell, there was at least enough of an interval between the first and second shot for Clark to stand up and start running. Peoples further contends that the evidence regarding the second shot cannot be sufficient for premeditation because there is nothing to show that his thought process was “undisturbed by hot blood.” See People v. Morrin, 187 N.W.2d 434, 449 (Mich. 1971). This argument does not suffice under the modified AEDPA deference standard. It would not be objectively unreasonable for the state court to conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could infer sufficient time for a deliberate, premeditated, and “cool blood” thought process between the first and second shots. We decline to grant a writ of habeas corpus as to the insufficiency of the evidence claim. No. 11-2161 Peoples v. Lafler Page 21