PEOPLE OF MI V JEFFREY JAMES WORDEN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 17, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 192112
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 95-000601-FH
JEFFREY JAMES WORDEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Markman, P.J., and McDonald and Fitzgerald, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted by jury of carrying a weapon with unlawful intent, MCL 750.226;
MSA 28.423, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA
28.424(2). He was sentenced to one year, six months to five years’ imprisonment for the carrying a
weapon with unlawful intent conviction, to be preceded by a consecutive sentence of two years’
imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction. We reverse defendant’s convictions and remand for
entry of directed verdicts of not guilty on both offenses.
Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and,
accordingly, that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. We
agree. In reviewing the denial of a directed verdict motion, this Court views the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution to determine if the evidence was sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to
find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Partridge, 211
Mich App 239, 240; 535 NW2d 251 (1995). To support a conviction of carrying a weapon with
unlawful intent, the prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant carried a
firearm or dangerous weapon with the intent to unlawfully use the weapon against another person.
People v Harrington, 194 Mich App 424, 428; 487 NW2d 479 (1992); see also People v Jones,
443 Mich 88, 102; 504 NW2d 158 (1993). The first element was established by defendant’s
statement to Deputy Timothy O’Boyle that defendant was carrying the gun at issue for his own safety.
However, insufficient evidence was offered at trial to support the intent element.
In People v Flinnon, 78 Mich App 380, 383; 260 NW2d 106 (1977), the defendants were
convicted of multiple offenses, including carrying a weapon with unlawful intent. The defendants had
-1
robbed a gas station and, when stopped thereafter, two rifles were seized from their car. Id. at 383
384. The following remarks in that case are instructive:
There is insufficient evidence of the intent with which the rifles were carried.
There is no evidence that the rifles were present during the robbery. That they were
may be inferred from their presence at arrest, but any further inferences -- such as the
rifles being loaded or the intent with which they were carried -- is unwarranted. It is not
a question of whether defendants might have carried the rifles with the unlawful intent,
but whether they in fact did have an unlawful intent. The argument that the rifles might
have been used during the robbery or that the hesitation of one of the defendants upon
exiting the vehicle shows the intent is mere speculation. Conviction under this statute
must rest on proof of the intent with which the weapons were carried, not mere
possibilities. The fact that loaded weapons were present in the passenger compartment
of the vehicle does not prove the intent with which they were carried. [Id. at 385.]
The evidence of intent was similarly absent here. David Dean testified that when defendant and
his wife approached in a car, he had a reasonable and honest belief that defendant was going to kill him.
However, even if this belief was accurate, it cannot reasonably be viewed as establishing what
defendant actually intended to do. There was also evidence that defendant told Deputy O’Boyle that he
intended to confront Dean about a particular matter, but there was no testimony that defendant said he
intended to confront Dean with the gun. Deputy O’Boyle testified that he saw defendant moving within
the vehicle in a manner which one might surmise was consistent with trying to remove the gun from the
briefcase in which it was found, but there was no evidence directly connecting that movement to the gun
or the briefcase. It cannot reasonably be inferred that defendant intended to confront Dean with the gun
merely because it was in the vehicle. That defendant might have intended to use the gun unlawfully
against Dean is not enough to support a conviction for carrying a weapon with unlawful intent. The
evidence presented at trial merely raised a possibility or allowed for conjecture that defendant may have
intended to confront Dean with the gun. While circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences that
arise from the evidence may suffice to establish the elements of a crime, inferences may not be based on
evidence that is uncertain, speculative, or that raises merely a conjecture or possibility. People v
Fisher, 193 Mich App 284, 289; 483 NW2d 452 (1992). We conclude that there was insufficient
evidence to support defendant’s conviction of carrying a weapon with unlawful intent.
Given our conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to support the underlying charge of
carrying a concealed weapon, it necessarily follows that the evidence was also insufficient to support the
felony-firearm conviction. People v Davis, 216 Mich App 47, 53; 549 NW2d 1 (1996) (a felony
firearm conviction requires proof that the defendant possessed a firearm during the commission or
attempt to commit a felony).
In light of this resolution, it is unnecessary to reach the other issues raised in defendant’s brief.
Reversed and remanded for entry of a directed verdict of not guilty on both charges.
Jurisdiction is not retained.
-2
/s/ Stephen J. Markman
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
-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.