Background
Armonte Javon McCaleb was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree murder, two counts of assault with intent to murder, and three counts of possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. The charges arose from an October 2021 drive-by shooting in Grand Rapids that killed Anthony McConer, Jr., while he sat in a parked car with Daaryon Love and Jaden Brown.
Love and Brown initially told police that they did not know the shooter but later identified McCaleb. Surveillance footage showed the shooting and the getaway in a white Jeep. Other evidence placed McCaleb nearby in the front passenger seat of a similar Jeep shortly before gunshots were heard, and police linked him to a Jeep sharing several distinctive features with the vehicle in the footage. McCaleb appealed, challenging the proof of his identity as the shooter and the prosecutor’s closing argument.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that sufficient evidence permitted a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that McCaleb was the shooter. The two survivors positively identified him, and their brief opportunity to observe the shooter and their initial false statements to police presented credibility questions for the jury. Their identifications were also corroborated by testimony about McCaleb’s location and direction of travel shortly before the shooting and by evidence connecting him to a similar white Jeep.
The court also rejected McCaleb’s prosecutorial-misconduct claim. Read in context, the prosecutor did not represent as a proven fact that McCaleb had told Myanna Mackie he intended to kill Love; the prosecutor asked the jury to draw that inference from evidence that Mackie spoke with McCaleb about Love before the shooting and soon afterward told another person that Love had been shot, despite no evidence that Mackie witnessed the shooting. The inference was reasonable, and the trial court’s immediate instruction that attorneys’ arguments were not evidence would in any event have alleviated any prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Positive eyewitness identifications can establish the shooter’s identity even when the witnesses had only seconds to observe him and initially denied knowing who he was.
- Appellate sufficiency review leaves credibility determinations to the jury and considers direct and circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
- A prosecutor may urge jurors to draw a reasonable inference from the trial evidence, and a prompt instruction that lawyers’ arguments are not evidence can cure potential prejudice.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates the demanding standard defendants face when challenging eyewitness identifications on sufficiency grounds. Inconsistencies, limited viewing time, and delayed identification ordinarily concern credibility rather than legal sufficiency, particularly when circumstantial evidence corroborates the witnesses.
It also distinguishes an improper assertion of facts outside the record from permissible argument about reasonable inferences. Courts assess challenged closing remarks in context, including the prosecutor’s full explanation and any immediate curative instruction.