IN RE MICHAEL BAK

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS __________________________________________ In re MICHAEL BAK, a Minor. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED May 19, 1998 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 195499 Wayne Juvenile Court LC No. 93-313071 MICHAEL BAK, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Gribbs and R.J. Danhof*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Defendant appeals as of right from his bench trial convictions of felonious assault, MCL 750.82; MSA 28.277, carrying a dangerous firearm with unlawful intent, MCL 750.226; MSA 28.423, and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). We affirm. Defendant first argues that his convictions were against the great weight of the evidence. We disagree. When reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact in a bench trial, this Court will not set aside those findings unless they are clearly erroneous. People v Reeves, 222 Mich App 32, 35; 564 NW2d 476 (1997); Phardel v State, 120 Mich App 806, 812; 328 NW2d 108 (1982).1 “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, an appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” People v Swirles, 218 Mich App 133, 136; 553 NW2d 357 (1996). Accord Phardel, supra at 812. Defendant asserts that his convictions were against the great weight of the evidence because there was no evidence that it was defendant who shot at the complaining witness on June 17, 1995. However, at trial the victim specifically testified that after he had been verbally threatened by defendant, defendant pulled out a handgun and fired four shots at the victim. Given this testimony, as well as the trial court’s unique position to judge the credibility of the testifying witnesses, MCR 2.613(C), we conclude that the trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. * Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ We also disagree with defendant’s argument that the trial court’s findings of fact were not specific enough. MCR 2.517(A)(2) states that in a bench trial, “[b]rief, definite, and pertinent findings and conclusions on the contested matters are sufficient, without over elaboration of detail or particularization of facts.” Additionally, “[a] trial court is not required to make specific findings regarding each element of a crime.” Reeves, supra at 35. Here, the trial court specifically indicated that it was focusing on the victim’s testimony. In the context in which it was made,2 this observation evidences both an understanding that the victim’s credibility was the central issue at trial, and that the trial court had concluded that the victim had told the truth. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court’s findings of fact were sufficient. Affirmed. /s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr. /s/ Roman S. Gribbs /s/ Robert J. Danhof 1 In Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm’r, 430 Mich 139, 187 n 26; 422 NW2d 205 (1988), the Michigan Supreme Court observed that “a ‘great weight of the evidence’ challenge would seem to be irrelevant in the bench trial setting.” In Phardel, this Court impliedly acknowledged this reality when the Court addressed a “great weight of the evidence” argument under the clearly erroneous standard. Phardel, supra at 812-813. 2 The closing arguments of both the prosecution and defendant focused exclusively on the credibility of the complaining witness. -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.