People of Michigan v. Danny Darnell White Jr

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 11, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:21 PM v No. 365749 Macomb Circuit Court DANNY DARNELL WHITE JR., LC No. 22-001202-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: MARIANI, P.J., and MALDONADO and YOUNG, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals by right his convictions by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a); felon in possession of a firearm (felon-in-possession), MCL 750.224f; and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. Defendant was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder; two to five years’ imprisonment for felon-in-possession; and two years’ imprisonment for each felony-firearm conviction. We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This case arises out of the September 28, 2021 shooting death of the victim. Defendant was a friend of the victim, and the victim regularly sold him marijuana. At the time of the victim’s death, defendant owed the victim $625. A neighbor’s security camera established that at 8:40 p.m. on the night of the murder, defendant’s vehicle pulled in front of the victim’s home. An individual entered the home, then exited at 9:01 p.m. The vehicle then drove away with its headlights off. The next morning, the victim’s body was found in his basement by his children. After conducting a search of the area, police discovered a vape pen in the victim’s hand and two handguns stored in lockboxes in a nearby closet. No other weapons were present. An autopsy revealed that the victim’s cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds, fired from as close as 2½ to 3 feet away from the victim; the manner of death was ruled a homicide. -1-  Defendant was subsequently interviewed by police. Initially, defendant denied involvement, but he eventually changed his story and admitted to shooting the victim, explaining that he did so in self-defense. Defendant stated that the victim pointed a large gun at him and threatened to shoot him if he did not pay him the money owed. The interview video was played for the jury during trial. Defendant testified at trial in his own defense. The jury found defendant guilty of first-degree premediated murder, felon-in-possession, and two counts of felony-firearm. Defendant was sentenced as stated. This appeal followed. II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE Defendant first argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his first-degree murder conviction—namely, to establish premeditation and to disprove his claim on self-defense. We disagree. “We review de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found every essential element proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Mitchell, 301 Mich App 282, 289-290; 835 NW2d 615 (2013). “Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising therefrom may be sufficient to prove the elements of a crime.” People v Nelson, 234 Mich App 454, 459; 594 NW2d 114 (1999). The prosecution “is not obligated to disprove every reasonable theory consistent with innocence to discharge its responsibility; it need only convince the jury in the face of whatever contradictory evidence the defendant may provide.” People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “A jury is free to believe or disbelieve, in whole or in part, any of the evidence presented. The jury may choose to believe part of a witness’s testimony and disbelieve another part of the same witness’s testimony.” People v Baskerville, 333 Mich App 276, 283-284; 963 NW2d 620 (2020) (quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted). “All conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the prosecution. This Court will not interfere with the trier of fact’s determinations regarding the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses.” People v Stevens, 306 Mich App 620, 628; 858 NW2d 98 (2014) (citations omitted). A. PREMEDITATION We do not see merit in defendant’s claim th