PEOPLE OF MI V CHARLES MICHAEL BANKS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED March 21, 1997 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 189430 Montmorency Circuit Court LC No. 95-000878-FH CHARLES MICHAEL BANKS a/k/a CHARLES MICHAEL HAWKS, Defendant-Appellant. Before: McDonald, P.J., and Griffin and Bandstra, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of larceny over $100, MCL 750.356; MSA 28.588. Defendant was sentenced to five years’ probation with the first sixty days to be served in jail. He appeals as of right. We affirm. Defendant claims that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of larceny over $100 because there was alternative evidence supporting his theory that his truck had been stolen on the morning of January 13, 1995. Defendant argues that it was therefore unreasonable for the jury to infer that he was present in his truck at 1:30 a.m. We disagree. This Court will not interfere with the jury’s role of determining the weight of the evidence or credibility of witnesses. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 514; 489 NW2d 748 (1992). A witness testified that he saw two occupants of defendant’s truck steal a snowmobile at approximately 1:30 a.m. on January 13, 1995. Another witness testified that he saw defendant in the truck at 1:00 a.m. A number of other witnesses placed defendant’s truck near the scene of the crime at approximately the time the crime occurred. Moreover, the jury had reason to find that defendant’s claims that his truck was stolen were incredible. The only evidence that defendant’s truck was actually stolen was his statements to the police and his girlfriend. Defendant also told the police that he had been at his girlfriend’s house since 10:40 p.m. the previous night. However, a witness testified that she saw defendant in his truck at approximately 11:00 to 11:30 p.m. that evening and at approximately 1:00 a.m. the next morning. Furthermore, an investigating police officer testified that at 3:00 a.m. that morning, -1­ defendant’s girlfriend searched the house and told the officer that defendant was not in the residence. Because credibility is a question for the jury and there was otherwise sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that defendant was in his truck when t e snowmobile was taken, there was sufficient h evidence to convict defendant. People v Jolly, 442 Mich 458, 466; 502 NW2d 177 (1993). Affirmed. /s/ Gary R. McDonald /s/ Richard Allen Griffin /s/ Richard A. Bandstra -2­

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.