PEOPLE OF MI V LUTHER ROLAND
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 22, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 189650
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 95-1641 FH
LUTHER ROLAND,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Reilly and O’Connell, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant and his friend, Joey Taylor, were “playing around pointing guns at each other.”
Defendant’s handgun discharged, striking Taylor in the chest. Taylor died soon thereafter. With the
bench sitting as trier of fact, defendant was convicted of careless, reckless or negligent use of a firearm
with injury or death resulting. MCL 752.861; MSA 28.436(21). He was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of sixteen to twenty-four months. He now appeals as of right, and we affirm.
On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to one element of
the offense of which he was convicted, the element requiring carelessness, recklessness or negligence.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the essential
elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Patterson, 428 Mich 502,
524-525; 410 NW2d 733 (1987).
Our review indicates that sufficient evidence exists to support defendant’s conviction. To act
carelessly is to act without “paying enough attention to what one does,” to act heedlessly. Random
House Webster’s College Dictionary, p 206. Defendant pointed a loaded firearm at a person and
then cocked it. Further, a statement of defendant was admitted into evidence at trial in which he
admitted that he had not checked to determine whether the firearm was loaded. A rational trier of fact,
Patterson, supra, could easily conclude that this constituted careless conduct. While defendant may
have been reckless or negligent as well, carelessness alone is sufficient to satisfy the statute.
-1
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Maureen Pulte Reilly
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
