Filed 2/25/22 P. v. Eggman CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

A jury found defendant David James Eggman guilty of counts including second degree murder and attempted murder. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) substantial evidence did not support his convictions as the prosecution failed to prove he did not act in self-defense; and (2) the prosecutor’s closing argument relied on facts not in evidence and improper propensity evidence. We will affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant shot and killed the victim; he also shot the victim’s brother in the leg. The shootings happened just outside a house where two groups had congregated: defendant’s group, and the victim’s group. This confrontation followed an earlier scuffle between defendant and the victim at a convenience store. Both events were partially captured by surveillance video.

At trial, the prosecution called witnesses, including a friend of the victim who saw the convenience store scuffle, and three men who accompanied the victim to the shooting: the victim’s friend, the victim’s brother, and the victim’s cousin. The defense called a friend of defendant and defendant.

A. The Convenience Store Scuffle

A friend of the victim testified that he was drinking with another man, when the victim came by and invited them to his house for a family gathering. On the way, they stopped at a convenience store. The friend went inside to buy drinks, and from there, he saw the victim and the other man in an altercation with several others outside.

The friend tried to separate the parties, but the angry exchange continued. The friend eventually convinced his party to leave, but not before he saw defendant take a swing at the victim. At trial, the jury was shown a surveillance video capturing defendant throwing a punch at the victim.

From there, the friend, the victim, and the other man drove to the victim’s grandmother’s house and left him there. They told him to go inside, relax, and not do anything stupid.

B. The Victim’s Friend’s Testimony

A different friend of the victim testified that the victim called, saying some people had tried to jump him. The victim said he wanted a one-on-one fight with the jumper and asked the friend to accompany him.

The victim, the victim’s brother, and the victim’s cousin came to pick up the friend, and together they drove to a house, but the people they were looking for were not there. They then drove to a second house, Cousin Daniel’s house.[1] There, they saw eight to 10 people outside, including defendant. They parked across the street and walked to the driveway.

As the friend testified, yelling back and forth transpired and Cousin Daniel tried, unsuccessfully, to calm everyone saying, “let’s go down the street,” “there’s kids in the house.” The friend punched the mailbox, knocking it down.

After that, defendant’s group started running inside the house. This was followed by the sound of gunshots, and the victim’s group took off running.[2] The friend ended up with shrapnel in his face.

The friend testified that he had not wanted a gunfight and, to his knowledge, no one in his group had a gun.[3] Rather, he had accompanied the victim expecting, at most, a brawl, because “everybody basically knew each other,” and Cousin Daniel was a relative.

On cross-examination, the victim’s friend denied knowing that a second car had accompanied the victim’s group.[4]

C. The Victim’s Brother’s Testimony

The victim’s brother testified that the victim called saying he had an altercation with defendant and was going to fight him one-on-one. The victim explained he had called Cousin Daniel, who said to come over so the victim and defendant could fight one-on-one. The brother testified, “I went with him to make sure it was gonna be a one-on-one,” adding, “I mean that’s my cousin’s house, but you never know.”

The brother picked up the victim and the victim’s cousin, and a friend came along. When they arrived at Cousin Daniel’s house, a group of six or seven were standing around, including Cousin Daniel and defendant. They parked, and all four approached the house. The victim’s brother approached the group and asked what was going on and if everyone was going to fight. They said they had no issue. The brother told them to talk to the victim.

The victim and his friend then talked to defendant and Cousin Daniel. Defendant and the victim began arguing. At some point, the victim’s friend punched the mailbox. Afterwards, Cousin Daniel went toward the house, saying something like he was going to put on his shoes. Defendant followed, saying, “hey, come here, come here.”

The brother also testified that at some point before the shooting, he heard someone in his group say, “they’re clutchin,” which he took to mean someone was holding a gun.

The brother next saw defendant and Cousin Daniel walk up to the victim and the victim’s friend and heard three shots. He did not see the gun, as defendant had it concealed in a sweater, but he did see a muzzle flash. Just before the first shot, the brother thought he heard someone say, “this is how it’s gonna go.” He then heard the victim say, “he shot me,” and saw the victim try to hobble away.[5]

The brother stood still for about 10 seconds before running away. As he ran, he was shot in the leg. He nevertheless managed to stumble into his car and drive off. But as he did, someone shot at his car. The brother then drove to the hospital.

The brother testified that the shooter who shot at his car, was “kind of shaped the same” as the shooter who shot the victim. He also testified: “I didn’t think nothing like that was gonna happen especially at my cousin’s house. Like if they weren’t gonna fight or nothing, we would have just left.” He added that he didn’t have a gun and did not go there for a gunfight. Asked if his family deals with issues by fighting, he explained: “I mean usually that’s the best way before something like that happens, they just settle it,” meaning, “fight one-on-one.”

The prosecution then showed a surveillance video of the shooting. The brother explained that in the video, defendant and Cousin Daniel can be seen walking into the house, before coming back out. The brother could also see a shooter running out and shooting at the brother’s car.

On cross-examination, the brother denied any memory of a second car. He acknowledged in the video a second car stopped behind them before going around them, though he made clear he did not see anyone get out, and there was only one car involved with the victim’s group.

D. The Victim’s Cousin’s Testimony

The victim’s cousin testified that he went with the victim’s brother to pick up the victim. He had heard there had been an altercation and there was going to be a fight: “I was just going to make sure everything was okay.”

They arrived at Cousin Daniel’s house; Cousin Daniel was there along with 10 or more people. They parked and walked to the driveway. The victim initially spoke with Cousin Daniel. Then a verbal altercation erupted, though at trial the cousin was not sure who it was between. Cousin Daniel said he had to put something away in the house.

Cousin Daniel then walked inside with defendant following him. “[L]ess than two seconds later” they reappeared, and the cousin heard defendant say, “this is how it’s gonna go down.” The victim was standing a few feet away. The cousin then heard a gunshot and saw a flash come from defendant, though he did not see a gun. Asked if the gun was concealed, he testified, “I’m not too sure. I don’t know if he had it in his sweater pocket or what.”

The cousin froze momentarily, but after hearing a bunch of shots ring out, he ran down the street and did not see who was shooting. The cousin later got a call from the victim who said he was shot and to come find him.[6]

The cousin testified he did not have a weapon with him and neither did the victim nor the victim’s friend. He explained, “[w]e knew a majority of everyone that was there,” and, “[t]hat’s why we didn’t even go with no weapon. . . . There’s always been altercations all the time and they always got settled without one, ‘cause everyone knew everyone. Only one I didn’t know there that night was [defendant].”

E. Defendant’s Friend’s Testimony

For the defense, a friend of defendant testified that he, defendant, and a couple of other guys, were at his nephew’s girlfriend’s house, hanging out in the driveway, doing donuts, when a car pulled up, and a group of five or six guys came out, including the victim.[7] He recognized the victim, who was a friend of his son’s. He had heard something happened earlier in the evening and, “I was thinking we were going to get into a fight.”

With the arrival of the victim’s group, arguing transpired, and one of the victim’s companions punched the mailbox, knocking it off. Another of the victim’s companions walked across the street and retrieved something from the car and passed it off to another guy. The friend testified that it looked like a gun.[8]

The friend then noticed that defendant had a handgun. He testified: “I saw him fire it into the ground. He was pointing the gun away from them and he was just telling them to leave.” He added, “The guy kind of didn’t get the hint until he fired the gun into the ground, and then he backed up and retreated.” He clarified that the retreating man was not the victim, but “another man.”

He also testified: “Then I remember a shooter just shooting, the one he passed the gun off to, just shooting, just unloading. I mean, I still see it. It is a black figure that was just flashes coming from it, just unloading, and it wasn’t shooting at me. It was only shooting at [defendant].” The friend threw his cell phone at the shooter, and the shooter stopped shooting. He then watched the shooter reach down to pick something up, and when the victim’s group left, his cellphone was gone. But he found another cellphone, picked it up, and got in the car and left. He later threw that phone out the car window.

Asked if defendant had “some kind of wound,” he testified, “yes,” explaining that after the shooting defendant had passed out and peed on himself. They did not, however, take him to a hospital because defendant did not want to go.

Defendant’s friend also testified that there were only two guns involved: the one defendant had and the one the shooter accompanying the victim had.

F. Defendant’s Testimony

Before defendant testified, the parties stipulated that 12 years before the shooting, “defendant . . . was involved in an altercation involving two groups comprised of people who were familiar with each other. He stabbed two people, killing one and injuring the other. In an interview, he stated that he acted in self-defense because someone yelled, quote, ‘go get a gun,’ unquote. [¶] . . . [H]e pled guilty to felony charges of assault with a deadly weapon and voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to prison.”

As to the charged incident, defendant testified that he started the day with his family, and toward the end of the day was hanging out at his friend’s house. There, he got a call that someone was picking on their mutual friend, so he and his friend drove to the convenience store.

There, he approached the people who were backing his friend down and yelled at “some heavyset dude” (the victim) to back up, and they exchanged heated words. When the victim “flinched” at him, defendant took a swing at him, before the victim walked to his car.

Defendant and the friend left and returned to the friend’s house. Others arrived, and they “took off in the cars and we were running around hot rodding the cars.” While driving through a neighborhood, they saw Cousin Daniel, who was going home, and they all went with him. At Cousin Daniel’s house, they were “chillin’ ” on the driveway for 10 to 20 minutes before someone drove up, asking about his girlfriend. Defendant said she wasn’t there and told the person to leave. The person drove off.

Five minutes later, two cars full of people pulled up. Defendant saw four people exit one car and rush up the driveway. He didn’t recognize any of them. One person approached and accused him of jumping his brother. Defendant said, “we don’t want no problems,” and told them to leave. The man repeated the accusation.

Defendant testified that at that point, “[e]verybody was going back and forth,” and one of the men hit the mailbox off the hinge. Defendant, afraid, slowly walked toward his friends, as the men advanced toward them. Defendant testified: “[T]his dude’s jumping around screaming, you can get it, too, saying I’m clutching, I’m clutching.” He then saw someone run to the first of the two stopped cars, take “something black” from it, and return to a man standing near the sidewalk.

Cousin Daniel told defendant to get in the house, so defendant went inside. Inside, Cousin Daniel was “wigging out,” saying the men would come inside where there were women and kids. Cousin Daniel handed defendant a gun, and defendant walked out to the porch, with Cousin Daniel behind him. Defendant testified that his exact words to the victim’s group were: “ ‘[Y]ou guys need to go now.’ ”

But the men refused to retreat: “They were coming at us the whole time.” With three of them close, defendant “fired a shot into the ground.” He testified the gun was in his hoodie pocket when he shot, and when he pulled his hand out of the hoodie pocket, he was shot in the wrist.[9] More shots followed: “[T]here was somebody sitting on the very left closest to the sidewalk, and he was just unloading at me the whole time. As soon as I felt it was safe to run, I took off running to the right.”

Defendant then ran down to the street. He was picked up by his friend, and he screamed to be brought home. He testified: “At first I wanted to go to the hospital, but by the time I woke up at my house, they . . . already had me wrapped up, and I didn’t know what to do. I was scared. I was in shock. I have never been shot.” As to getting shot, he testified: “It killed my arm. My arm was dead.”

On cross-examination defendant denied saying, “this is how it is going to go down,” before shooting. He also maintained he only shot once and denied he was the shooter seen in the video shooting at the retreating car. He also testified that there were three guns.[10] Asked who had the third gun, he testified: “All I know is somebody ran shooting at the person that was shooting at me.”

As to the whereabouts of the gun he used, he testified: “They took it. When I got to the house and woke up, my sweater was gone and the gun was gone.” Asked why he would conceal the gun while firing it, he explained, “I wasn’t thinking that they were going to be so protruded into our driveway when I came out, and I just had the gun in my pocket just for safety, and then I fired the gun when I seen how close they were to it.”

Defendant also testified that the day the victim died (which was two days after the shooting), he and Tyler went to Oregon to go snowboarding.[11]

G. Jury Verdict & Sentencing

The jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)); assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)); attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)); discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle (§ 246); and felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). It also found numerous firearm enhancements true. Defendant admitted a prior strike.

The trial court thereafter sentenced defendant to an aggregate 85-year-to-life indeterminate term along with a 23-year determinate term. It was comprised of 30 years to life for murder (the 15-year indeterminate term doubled for the prior strike) along with a 25-year-to-life firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); 18 years for attempted murder (the nine-year upper term doubled for the strike) along with another 25-year-to-life firearm enhancement; and five-year prior serious felony enhancements added to both the indeterminate and determinate terms. For other counts, sentences were imposed and stayed under section 654.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Substantial Evidence

Defendant first contends substantial evidence did not support his convictions because the evidence failed to establish that he did not act in self-defense when he shot at the victim’s group. To this, he argues the victim’s group hunted him after the convenience store scuffle, while he merely went to hang out with friends. He maintains members of the victim’s group coordinated their stories of expecting a one-on-one fight, and it was unreasonable to expect such men “to abide by a chivalrous code of honor.” And regardless, the victim’s group aggressively confronted defendant, which would lead anyone to believe they wanted more than a one-on-one fight. He notes, they punched the mailbox after he and his group made clear kids were in the house, and they did not want to fight. And defendant retrieved the gun only after someone in the victim’s group retrieved something from the car and after someone shouted, “they’re clutching.”

Defendant also challenges the credibility of the victim’s group as to their claim they were unarmed. He notes that both the victim’s friend and brother denied a second car pulling up. Yet, a detective testified that a second car can be seen in the surveillance video, with someone exiting it and moving towards the driveway. Defendant argues that by denying the presence of reinforcements, the victim’s group was clearly untruthful about the shooting and being unarmed.

Finally, he argues the evidence indicates the second shooter belonged to the victim’s group. He reasons that defendant was shot in his right hand, and it would be impossible for the wound to be self-inflicted as he is right-handed. His friend who threw his phone would have no reason to throw it at someone in his group. The .40-caliber casings were clustered in the northwest corner, which was consistent with defense testimony. And no one testified to seeing the second shooter belonging to defendant’s group.

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to decide whether substantial evidence supports the conviction. (People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664, 671 [“Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”].) We accept all logical inferences the jury might have drawn from circumstantial evidence. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.) “ ‘We do not reweigh evidence or reevaluate a witness’s credibility.’ ” (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 210.) A finding of insufficient evidence “ ‘is unwarranted unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support” the jury’s verdict.’ ” (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)

Distilled, defendant’s contention amounts to a credibility challenge along with an assertion of an alternative hypothesis. But on a substantial evidence challenge we do not assess credibility, nor may we reverse a conviction where the evidence might also comport with a hypothesis more favorable to the defendant. Beyond that, the record provides substantial evidence that defendant did not act in self-defense.

Rather than hunting defendant, the victim’s older brother testified that the victim called Cousin Daniel, who invited the victim over so defendant and the victim could fight one-on-one. (People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1052 [“Even when there is a significant amount of countervailing evidence, the testimony of a single witness that satisfies the standard is sufficient to uphold the finding”].) Consistent with that, the surveillance video shows defendant’s group arriving at the house only a minute before the victim’s group arrives, suggesting a planned meet-up, rather than the victim hunting defendant.

While defendant maintains he made clear he did not want to fight, there was ample evidence to allow for the jury to conclude otherwise. The convenience store video showed defendant taking an unprovoked swing at the victim. Multiple witnesses testified to defendant and the victim arguing before the shooting. And defendant was first to open fire, fatally shooting the victim with a concealed gun. Beyond those facts, the parties stipulated that defendant had previously stabbed someone to death and claimed self-defense.

As to the second shooter, witnesses who accompanied the victim testified that no one in their group had guns. Whether or not a second car had accompanied the victim’s group did not preclude the jury from finding that testimony credible. Indeed, testimony from the defense as to the second shooter was particularly vague, with defendant’s friend testifying to throwing his phone at “a black figure” who was shooting, and defendant testified that “somebody” close to the sidewalk was shooting. And evidence that someone shouted, “he’s clutching,” did not necessarily point to the second shooter being part of the victim’s group. Further, the surveillance video shows defendant running from the porch to the street to shoot at the fleeing brother, showing no concern with the other shooter.

And even if the second shooter were in the victim’s group, it would not preclude a jury from finding that defendant had not acted in self-defense. Defendant was first to fire a gun, and with no apparent, commensurate provocation. And though he testified to shooting into the ground, someone saying, “he shot me,” can be heard in the surveillance video immediately after the first shot. Defendant then ran to the street, opening fire; not on the other shooter, but at the victim’s brother as he fled. Indeed, defendant never maintained that shooting at the fleeing brother was self-defense, he simply maintained—against all evidence to the contrary—that he fired only once and that there was a third shooter.

Similarly unavailing is defendant’s reliance on the bullet hole in his right arm. The jury had every reason to conclude that injury happened after the charged incident. In the surveillance video, defendant is seen repeatedly shooting at the victim’s brother in the car, suggesting he had not yet been hit.[12] Further, his own testimony was that two days after the incident, he went snowboarding in Oregon.[13]

In short, this is not a case where it can be said that on no hypothesis whatsoever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. (People v. Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 357.)[14]

B. Prosecutorial Misconduct

Defendant next contends that, during closing argument, the prosecutor made two statements amounting to prosecutorial misconduct: (1) the prosecutor made an unsupported claim that there was evidence the second shooter was on defendant’s side; and (2) the prosecutor referred improperly to defendant’s “ ‘criminal mindset.’ ” We address each in turn.[15]

1. The Second Shooter Was on Defendant’s Side

During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued to the jury: “After the defendant fires, there’s a delay before more shots ring out. Don’t you think if the victims were armed and ready, that they would have shot back immediately? [¶] But like I said before, here is what really seals the deal. After that first shot, the defendant doesn’t hit the ground, he doesn’t run into the house, he leaves the porch. He steps over that barrier and chases [the victim’s brother] while unloading his gun. [¶] Now, not only does that give us insight into his murderous mindset, it is further proof that the second shooter was on his side.” (Italics added.)

Defendant points to the italicized portion and argues it is problematic for two reasons. First, claiming the conduct is “further proof” that the second shooter was on defendant’s side implies there was other evidence supporting the contention. Defendant maintains there was no testimony or surveillance video evidence demonstrating the second shooter was on defendant’s side. Second, he argues the fact that he may have chased the victim into the street does not support a finding that the second shooter was on his side. He reasons that had this been a reasonable inference, the prosecutor would have explained why such a conclusion could be reached given the importance of identifying the second shooter. We cannot agree.

To the first point, there was other evidence the second shooter was on defendant’s side. The three men accompanying the victim testified that no one in their group had a gun. Accordingly, the gun must have come from the other group. Further, the victim’s friend told a detective the second shooter may have been “Tyler,” whom the victim quarreled with at the convenience store. Suffice it to say, there was nothing improper about the prosecutor characterizing defendant running into the street as “further proof.” (See People v. Hamilton (2009) 45 Cal.4th 863, 953 [“Prosecutors ‘have wide latitude to discuss and draw inferences from the evidence at trial,’ and whether ‘the inferences the prosecutor draws are reasonable is for the jury to decide’ ”].)

To the second point, the prosecutor did in fact explain why defendant’s run to the street could show the second shooter was part of his group. She explained to the jury: “We all know that when gunfire erupts, civilians run, just like everyone in [the victim’s] group. The only people that ever run towards gunfire are the military and law enforcement, and that takes an incredible amount of training. It is against our instinct. There is no way the defendant ran toward hostile gunfire, toward a person shooting on the sidewalk. He chased [the victim’s brother] in that direction because he wasn’t worried.” In any event, we think it self-evident that when a person chases and concentrates their fire on an unarmed, fleeing individual, while someone nearby is shooting, it may be reasonably inferred that the person does not consider that other shooter a threat.

2. The References to Defendant’s Mindset

Next, defendant points to four instances in the prosecutor’s closing, where she referred to defendant’s mindset, including his “murderous mindset.”

In the first, the prosecutor argued: “The way that [the victim] and his people dealt with problems is not unusual. There’s some smack talking, a couple punches and then the towel is thrown. There’s a winner and a loser and then they crack a beer together. This way things don’t fester. Weapons don’t come into it. People don’t die. [¶] But the defendant was an outlier . . . . He came into this with his own mindset, and it’s one of extreme violence. He wasn’t going to let this end with a fistfight and a beer. It was going to end his way, on his terms.” (Italics added.)

Later the prosecutor argued: “Here the defendant calmly walked away from the shouting match. He went inside. Despite the presence of various safe options, he chose to retrieve a gun. . . . He walked back out calmly. He announced that this is how it was going to go down, and he shot someone standing two to three feet in front of him. [¶] We premeditate traffic lights everyday. The scary part, that’s how the defendant’s mind seems to work when it comes to violence. We’re not going to do it your way. We are going to do it my way. You’re not in control, I am. This is how it’s going to happen. I’m going to take you out.” (Italics added.)

Sometime after that, the prosecutor argued: “After that first shot, the defendant doesn’t hit the ground, he doesn’t run into the house, he leaves the porch. He steps over that barrier and chases [the victim’s brother] while unloading his gun. [¶] Now, not only does that give us insight into his murderous mindset, it is further proof that the second shooter was on his side.” (Italics added.)

And finally, the prosecutor summed up: “[Defendant’s] actions weren’t reactionary. He took his time before going into the house. He took his time inside the house, and he came out and announced what he was going to do before he did it. [¶] He wasn’t scared. He was consistently aggressive. The tough guy. He decided on his own he was going to be the enforcer, that he was going to have the last say. There would be no fistfight, no shared beers, just a body count. [¶] It’s his mindset that makes him a dangerous human being, and it is his mindset that makes him guilty of these crimes.” (Italics added.)

Defendant argues the italicized portions told the jury that he had a propensity or predisposition to commit crimes. He also argues “[t]he prosecutor’s comments on the other crimes evidence, therefore, went beyond the limited purpose for which the trial court allowed in the evidence, which was whether he had the requisite intent to commit the specified offenses.”

Defendant has misconstrued the prosecutor’s statements. As the context makes clear, the prosecutor was referring to defendant’s state of mind when he shot the victim, as contrasted to the intent of the victim’s group, who sought at most a brawl. Accordingly, “murderous mindset” was used in the context of arguing the shootings were not in self-defense—not to argue defendant had a propensity to commit murder. The statements were therefore neither prosecutorial misconduct, nor did trial counsel render ineffective assistance in failing to object to them.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

DUARTE, Acting P. J.

/S/

KRAUSE, J.

[1] Because many witnesses refer to Daniel as their cousin, and because many at the shooting were also related as cousins, we refer to Daniel as “Cousin Daniel” at all times. Additionally, the house was often referred to as belonging to Cousin Daniel, though he merely frequented the house. But for simplicity, we refer to it as “Cousin Daniel’s house.”

[2] The friend denied that he told a detective that defendant came out of the house, stood on the porch, and said something like, “this is how we’re gonna do it,” before shooting through his pocket. He answered, “maybe,” when asked if he had also said that defendant had emptied his gun.

[3] After the shooting, the victim’s friend told a detective that the second shooter may have been “Tyler,” though he could not be certain. The victim had a “beef” with Tyler, who was seen in the convenience store surveillance video.

[4] A detective testified that in the surveillance video, a second car arrives with the victim’s group and someone exits the second car. When the victim’s friend spoke to that detective after the shooting, he said there were no guns in the car he was in but he would not know if guns were in the second car.

[5] In the surveillance video, “he shot me” can be heard several seconds after the first shot.

[6] The victim later bled to death.

[7] In the surveillance video, the defendant’s group arrives at the house only about a minute before the victim’s group arrives.

[8] The victim’s cousin testified that at some point, he returned to his car to grab his phone.

[9] A detective saw a bullet wound through defendant’s right wrist.

[10] A forensic investigator testified to finding 13 nine-millimeter cartridge casings, four unfired nine-millimeter cartridge casings, and eight .40-caliber cartridges at the crime scene. The parties stipulated that all the nine-millimeter casings were fired from the same nine-millimeter Luger semiautomatic firearm. All the .40-caliber casings were fired from the same .40 Smith & Wesson.

[11] The same Tyler the victim’s friend told a detective may have been the second shooter.

[12] In the surveillance video, an identifiable logo can be seen on defendant’s jacket as he is standing on the porch, and seconds later, is seen again in the street after shooting at the fleeing car.

[13] Defendant was arrested two weeks after the shooting.

[14] Defendant argues in the alternative that his second degree murder and attempted murder convictions should be reduced to voluntary manslaughter and attempted manslaughter if this court finds defendant did not act in perfect self-defense. But as discussed, substantial evidence supports the finding that defendant did not act in self-defense, and therefore this alternative contention fails.

[15] At the outset, the People respond the contention is forfeited for failure to object to those statements during closing argument. Because defendant alternatively raises this challenge as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we will simply address the merits.