Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice David F. Viviano, Chief
Justice Pro Tem Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra Richard H.
Bernstein Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh, Justices.
order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the
August 21, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is
considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), and in lieu of
granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the
Court of Appeals and REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit
Court for a new trial. The Court of Appeals erred in
concluding that the prosecution established that the
confrontation violation was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt. Reviewing the record de novo, we cannot conclude that
admission of Westley Webb's testimony-the only evidence
that placed a gun in the defendant's hand-"did not
tip the scale in favor of the prosecution and contribute to
the jury's verdict." People v Anderson, 446
Mich. 392, 407 (1994). Instead, it seems "reasonable to
believe that this evidence affected the jury's decision
to convict." Id.
not retain jurisdiction.
deny leave to appeal because I agree with the Court of
Appeals that the Confrontation Clause error in this case, the
admission of Westley Webb's preliminary-examination
testimony at defendant's joint trial with codefendant,
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It is true that
the erroneously admitted testimony was the only evidence
explicitly placing a gun in the possession of defendant. But
as the panel noted after an examination of the record, the
prosecution presented a very strong circumstantial case
was presented showing that defendant possessed a motive to
shoot the security guards, as defendant was reportedly very
angry that he been ejected from the club for fighting.
Defendant subsequently lingered around the club, and
witnesses testified that defendant pointed angrily or made
hand gestures and stated that he would be back. Defendant was
denied reentry to the club to look for his phone because he
refused to be searched, at which point he was described as
"[s]till hostile." Security guards working at the
club reported that defendant was watching them from across
the street before defendant was observed riding past the club
multiple times in the passenger seat of a vehicle driven by
codefendant. This caused at least two of the security guards
to draw their weapons and hold them at their sides. The
security guards noticed defendant's sudden absence from
the vehicle, and were actively looking for him just seconds
before they were shot at from behind. After the shooting,
defendant engaged in abnormal behavior by abruptly cutting
off communication with the victim's mother and abandoning
plans to meet up with his girlfriend. This circumstantial
evidence is compelling.
I question the impact of Webb's testimony. While
Webb's testimony was certainly inculpatory, it was also
convoluted, inconsistent, and somewhat confusing. And Webb
was effectively impeached by codefendant's trial counsel,
who emphasized Webb's prior convictions and the fact that
Webb only testified pursuant to a deal with the prosecutor.
For these reasons, I conclude that the erroneous admission of
Webb's testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Markman, J., joins the statement of Zahra, J.
 The applicable harmless-error standard
requires "the beneficiary of the error to prove, and the
court to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt that there is
no 'reasonable possibility that the evidence complained
of might have contributed to the conviction.'"
People v Anderson (After Remand), 446 Mich. 392, 406
(1994), quoting Chapman v California, 386 U.S. 18,
23 (1967) (quotation marks omitted).
" 'Circumstantial evidence and
reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can
constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a
crime.'" People v Nowack, 462 Mich. 392,
400 (2000), quoting People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750,
757 (1999) (quotation marks omitted).
 Security guards testified that the
purpose of such a search was "[f]or security
reasons"; it was not permitted to "bring a weapon
in the building." Defendant's refusal to be patted
down by the security guards at least supports an inference
that he possessed a ...