People of Michigan v. Dorian Johnson

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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 11, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:25 PM v No. 365266 Wayne Circuit Court DORIAN JOHNSON, LC No. 21-002143-01-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: MARIANI, P.J., and MALDONADO and YOUNG JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals by right his jury-trial convictions of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317; felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f; and two counts of carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Shortly after midnight on July 27, 2020, defendant placed a call for emergency assistance; he told the 911 dispatcher that he had found a woman (the victim) along the side of the road bleeding from her head, and that he had blood all over himself. Defendant drove the victim to a nearby fire station and met with first responders there. The victim was in the front passenger seat of defendant’s car and there was blood in that area of the car. The victim was still alive and was transported to the hospital. Defendant was placed in the back of a police vehicle and briefly questioned. Defendant told the police, as he had told the 911 dispatcher, that he had found the victim near some railroad tracks and brought her to the fire station for assistance. He also identified the victim and explained that there had been an incident or argument involving the victim and another woman earlier that day. As the evidence would later establish, defendant had a romantic relationship with the victim -1- and was also involved with the other woman.1 After the police finished questioning defendant, they placed him under arrest on outstanding traffic warrants. Defendant was questioned again the next day, after he had been taken to the police station and had agreed to waive his constitutional rights. Defendant again told the police that he had found the victim along a road near some railroad tracks. Defendant stated that he and the victim had been at his mother’s house earlier that night. He had left the victim outside of the house as he went inside to use the bathroom, but when he returned, the victim was gone. Defendant explained that he could not call the victim to find her because she had left her phone in his car, and that the victim’s car remained parked outside of the house. Defendant stated that he then decided to drive to a liquor store and, on the way, he saw the victim’s body along the road. Defendant also described again the argument that had occurred earlier that night, explaining that the friend had become upset with defendant because defendant had opted to spend time with the victim rather than the friend. Defendant additionally mentioned that he and the victim had argued earlier in the day, but that it had been “smoothed over” quickly. Eventually, defendant requested a lawyer, and the interview ended. The victim died on July 27, 2020, as a result of a gunshot wound to the back of the head. Her autopsy indicated that the wound was not self-inflicted, and bullet fragments were recovered from her body. A search of the area where defendant stated that he had found the victim uncovered no evidence. A search of defendant’s car revealed a firearm in between the rear seat and the trunk, and a holster in the front center console. A fragment of a bullet was also recovered from the front passenger seat and another bullet fragment was found in the trunk underneath a mat. The bullet fragment found in the trunk was a match to the firearm. A bullet fragment recovered during the victim’s autopsy was consistent with the type of firearm found in defendant’s car. Blood and a possible bullet impact were found on the inside of the front passenger door of defendant’s car, and what appeared to be human tissue was found on the window; blood was not found, however, on the area of the front passenger seat where the victim would have been sitting, nor was blood found on defendant. The medical examiner confirmed that the injury to the victim’s head would have affected her ability to run or crawl; there was also no indication of abrasions on the victim’s legs, hands, or arms. DNA testing showed that DNA found on the trigger and grip of the firearm was a match to defendant’s and the victim’s DNA, but not to the f