## Facts

- Clarence D. Moore was prosecuted for a Flint, Michigan shooting in which DeJuan Boylston carried and fired the gun, killing one victim and injuring another.
- Earlier that evening, Moore and Boylston argued with the eventual victims.
- Moore and Boylston later confronted the victims while Boylston was armed; Moore threatened them and attempted to escalate the encounter.
- When Boylston hesitated, Moore attempted to grab the gun and repeatedly pressured Boylston to shoot, including threatening to end their friendship if he refused.
- Boylston ultimately fired, and Moore was convicted of first-degree murder, assault with intent to murder, and felony-firearm on an aiding-and-abetting theory.
- In a separate case, Erwin Harris was convicted of felony-firearm as an aider and abettor arising from a confrontation outside a bar in which another man carried and fired the gun.
- Harris was alleged to have encouraged and facilitated the gunman, including participating in pursuit and helping bring about the confrontation leading to the shooting.
- The two appeals were consolidated to address the standard for aiding-and-abetting liability for felony-firearm.

## Issues

1. Whether aiding-and-abetting felony-firearm requires proof that the defendant assisted the principal in obtaining or retaining the firearm.
2. Whether the correct standard is the general aiding-and-abetting inquiry—whether the defendant’s words or deeds procured, counseled, aided, or abetted another to carry or possess a firearm during the commission or attempted commission of a felony.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the felony-firearm convictions of Moore and Harris under the proper standard.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court overruled the prior rule requiring proof that an accomplice assisted in obtaining or retaining possession of the firearm.
- The Court held that felony-firearm aiding-and-abetting is governed by the aiding-and-abetting statute’s terms: whether the defendant’s words or deeds procured, counseled, aided, or abetted another to carry or possess a firearm during the felony or attempted felony.
- Applying that standard, the Court held the evidence was sufficient to support Moore’s felony-firearm conviction and affirmed it.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeals in Harris and reinstated Harris’s felony-firearm conviction.

## Legal Principles

- For felony-firearm under an aiding-and-abetting theory, the prosecution need not prove the defendant assisted in obtaining or retaining the firearm.
- The proper test is whether the defendant’s words or conduct procured, counseled, aided, or abetted another’s carrying or possession of a firearm during the commission or attempted commission of a felony.
- An aider and abettor may be convicted of felony-firearm even without physically handling the weapon, so long as the defendant intentionally assisted or encouraged the armed possession in connection with the underlying felony.
- Courts should not impose extra-statutory limitations on accomplice liability that narrow the aiding-and-abetting statute’s language.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court aligned felony-firearm accomplice liability with the general aiding-and-abetting statute, rejecting a firearm-acquisition/retention requirement and sustaining felony-firearm convictions where the defendant’s actions or encouragement assisted another’s armed possession during a felony.


People v. Moore, 679 N.W.2d 41 (Mich. 2004)