Whether the defendant's conviction for involuntary manslaughter violated due process when the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally caused the victim's death

No question identified. : OV sah Nege MpP2Roped ly loseel Ch tn hea in eda 20d FL Aix 0 _Askecl fo PY GI + cond 2 SURE b eee ny stafieterm Subslerlial 2iyktse ldhsel Md ALLEndy brew SadssExed Apzrom v Fylimspaale, 424 US at SH 349 cpop7\ TL. Peel. eainefame li Ta ¢ ET wns wok Suppoeded by Constetuttowally Siffretent eet Mle Were vot THe Proxtmare Chose of Ms, — Hoecly's “dearan [My Aets Toms wot Consdrile ates \ mi | THe Ya Usolvted Ns, Qsak to A Fare Teaal by Showing _lakos Tw Feat of Ae Sey. : Bl the fetal Coord bused tds _clsceabtow by Nenyrwe my y for a mrsdeale A Corgdive Sory Tasdeuc# tows WAS hat Enovg to Remedy this Creone _ the enlsee _vadeo.of my Police Ineetogitsowe Thece Weta Seveae thet shald had keen tecacdeds Alleemituely..My eral covasel Perlormed cleticrenly Ty faxtaug to obsect to thes voucllawa | feam the polsoeolfaeees tu Phe_yideo, — Ty, NV The test Coord vtoleded my hike ConsletoTIoual eaghts the Prswcsple of propse}-toualzty When ct dlepaededd from the dusde lawyes and. Tmaposed fhe _pnavtmum posszble. Senence. bese ow the _assumptsow. Hat the. “Suey. Got Loeong't TS Urns Smpropealy Sentenced based! on Age If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION, ” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. aan UI eee STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, FOR PUBLICATION September 12, 2024 Plaintiff-Appellee, 9:00 a.m. v No. 360133 Wayne Circuit Court ALLEN MICHAEL SHERRILL, LC No. 19-002487-01-FC Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and CAVANAGH and M. J. KELLY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant, Allen Sherrill, was tried for first-degree murder, MCL 750.316, carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), MCL 750.227, and carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. The jury convicted Sherrill of the lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter, MCL 750.321, CCW, and felony-firearm. The trial court resentenced Sherrill to first serve two years for felony-firearm before he served terms of 10 to 15 years for manslaughter and three to five years for CCW. Sherrill appeals as of right. Because there are no errors warranting reversal, we affirm. I. BASIC FACTS On March 1, 2019, Junika Hardy died after being shot in the back of the neck while in the driver’s seat of her vehicle. Sherrill, who was in the backseat with Hardy and his two-year-old child, claimed that Hardy had taken his loaded gun from the passenger seat next to her and had started waving it around while she was driving. When she held the gun up to her head, he tried to grab the gun from her and it went off. He claims that he managed to pull the vehicle into a parking fot and that when he opened the driver’s door, Hardy’s body fell out. Sherrill called Hardy’s mother and told her thal Hardy had killed herself. Hardy’s mother directed him to call 9-1-1, which he did. He again stated that Hardy had committed suicide. When the police arrived, Sherrill was taken into custody. During a police interview, Sherrill consistently stated that Hardy had shot herself with his gun after they had had a dispute regarding their daughter’s relationship with his new girlfriend. The medical examiner, however, classified Hardy’s death as a homicide because, in his opinion, it was virtually impossible for her to have shot herself in the back of the neck. -l Moreover, the evidence suggested that Hardy was facing forward when she was shot given that one of her teeth and some of her hair extensions were on the vehicle’s dashboard. The shell casing from the bullet was also recovered from the backseat. Following a jury trial, Sherrill was convicted of the lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter, CCW, and felony-firearm. This appeal follows. I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Sherrill argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of involuntary manslaughter.! Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are reviewed de novo. People v Ericksen, 288 Mich