## Facts

- Christopher Allan Oros went door-to-door at an apartment complex in Kalamazoo, Michigan, using a deceptive story to gain access to residents and solicit money.
- Oros claimed his girlfriend left him without access to his vehicle, debit card, or phone, asked to use a resident’s phone, and placed calls to his own cellphone located in his vehicle.
- Residents reported Oros’s conduct became aggressive and suggested he was “casing” apartments.
- Oros used the same ruse to enter Marie McMillan’s apartment and used her phone in the same manner.
- McMillan was stabbed 29 times; Oros did not dispute he intended to kill her.
- In a police interview, Oros provided inconsistent accounts, including claims that unknown men were present and an account suggesting the victim attacked him first, which the prosecution argued was contradicted by physical evidence.
- A jury convicted Oros of first-degree premeditated murder and he was sentenced to life without parole.
- The court of appeals found insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation, reduced the conviction to second-degree murder, and remanded for resentencing.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of premeditation and deliberation for first-degree premeditated murder under MCL 750.316(1)(a).
2. Whether the intermediate appellate court exceeded its role by reweighing evidence and credibility in a sufficiency-of-the-evidence review.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the first-degree premeditated murder conviction and life-without-parole sentence.
- The Court held that a rational juror could find premeditation and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt from the record evidence.
- The Court concluded the court of appeals misapplied governing precedent and improperly substituted its assessment of the evidence for the jury’s.

## Legal Principles

- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Appellate courts may not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict.
- Premeditation and deliberation may be proven by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences, including evidence of a plan or scheme, the defendant’s conduct before and after the killing, and the circumstances of the killing.
- Multiple distinct acts of violence and the time required to inflict them can support an inference that the defendant had an opportunity to pause and take a “second look,” permitting a finding of premeditation and deliberation.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence—including Oros’s deceptive conduct used to gain entry, the 29 stab wounds, and the jury’s ability to infer time for reflection—was sufficient for a rational juror to find premeditation and deliberation, and it reinstated the first-degree murder conviction and sentence.


People v. Oros, 502 Mich. 229, 917 N.W.2d 559 (Mich. 2018)