PEOPLE OF MI V RODERICK BRUNSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 8, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 197731
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 95-011685
RODERICK BRUNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Neff and Reilly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was originally charged with delivering less than 50 grams of cocaine, MCL
333.7401(2)(a)(iv); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iv). Following a bench trial on May 1, 1996, the judge
convicted defendant of possession of less than 25 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(iv); MSA
14.15(7403)(2)(a)(iv). On June 5, 1996, Detroit Recorder’s Court Judge Robert L. Ziolkowski
sentenced defendant to a one-year term of probation. Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant worked at American Axle Manufacturing Plant ("American Axle") located in Detroit,
Michigan. Calvin Buck also worked for American Axle maintaining the vending machines. In addition,
Buck was employed by Professional Corporate Intelligence (PCI) as an undercover investigator in
conjunction with the Detroit Narcotics Division of the Detroit Police Department. In this capacity, he
purchased drugs at American Axle premises in an effort to catch the sellers and, ultimately, eliminate
drug trafficking at the plant.
On August 10, 1995, Buck approached defendant, at work, to buy drugs. Defendant
suggested that Buck meet him at a later time to complete the transaction. About 7:30 p.m., Buck met
defendant at the agreed upon location. Buck gave defendant twenty dollars in exchange for two bags of
crack cocaine.
Buck immediately placed the narcotics in an evidence envelope and wrote the date of the
transaction and his initials on the envelope. Buck did not know defendant’s name at this time so he
placed the word “unknown” on the envelope where he would usually place the seller’s name. Buck
1
then put the envelope in the glove box in his car. The car remained locked at all times during the day
and Buck was the only person who had access to the car. When Buck returned home after work that
evening, Buck transferred the envelope with the narcotics inside to a locked safe provided to him by
PCI. The evidence remained in the locked safe at all times until Buck was instructed by his supervisors
to take the evidence to the Narcotics Division for testing. Buck took the evidence to the police
department, as instructed, where the evidence remained until trial. The evidence tested positive as
crack cocaine.
On appeal, defendant argues that the prosecutor failed to present sufficient evidence to prove
that he was the person who sold narcotics to Buck on the evening in question. 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 Petrella, 424 Mich 221, 268-270; 380 NW2d 11
(1985); People v Daniels 172 Mich App 374, 378; 431 NW2d 846 (1988).
Defendant suggests that because Buck did not know his name when he bought the drugs,
Buck’s notation, “unknown,” on the envelope is insufficient to establish that defendant was the seller.
Thus, defendant contends that when Buck later learned defendant’s name from others at the plant, and
then identified the seller as defendant in a photograph, these were unreliable sources. Furthermore,
defendant argues that the trial court’s reliance on Buck’s testimony was misplaced in light of his
contradictory testimony at the preliminary hearing.
Our review indicates that sufficient evidence exists to support defendant’s conviction.
“Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from the evidence may constitute satisfactory
proof of the elements of the offense.” People v Drayton, 168 Mich App 174, 176; 423 NW2d 606
(1988). Appellate courts are reluctant to disturb the trial court’s findings when the principal issue raised
on appeal is the credibility of witnesses. People v Hughes, 217 Mich App 242, 248; 550 NW2d 871
(1996).
Buck testified that he marked the evidence envelope “unknown” because he did not know
defendant’s name at the time of the purchase. Buck also remarked that this was the only time he had
ever done that, and in every other situation he had placed a name on the envelope. In addition, the
transaction with defendant was the only one that Buck participated in on August 10, 1995.
Furthermore, Buck and defendant were in each other’s presence long enough on the evening of the
transaction for Buck to later accurately identify defendant in a series of photographs. Finally, Buck
described defendant in his PCI report with sufficient specificity for the court to find that defendant was
the seller of the narcotics. Therefore, it can reasonably be inferred that the evidence contained in the
enveloped marked “unknown” was obtained from defendant.
Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in establishing a chain of custody for
the narcotics. Defendant failed to object to the chain of custody at trial. Therefore, because
2
this issue was not preserved for appellate review, we could decline to address it. See People v Grant,
445 Mich 535, 547; 520 NW2d 123 (1994). Yet, because the record is clear and simple, a review of
Buck's testimony plainly establishes a sufficient chain of custody.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Maureen Pulte Reilly
3
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.
