CITY OF DEARBORN V YOLANDA NICHOLS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CITY OF DEARBORN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 19, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
YOLANDA NICHOLS a/k/a YOLANDA YVETTE
NICHOLS,
No. 202762
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 96-626364-AR
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Neff, P.J., and O’Connell and Young, Jr., JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted following a bench trial in district court of larceny under one-hundred
dollars in violation of Dearborn Ordinances, § 14-92. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted from the circuit
court order reversing defendant’s conviction. We reverse the circuit court’s order, reinstate defendant’s
conviction, and remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred in reversing defendant’s conviction on the ground that
there was insufficient evidence to sustain defendant’s larceny conviction. We agree. In reviewing a
sufficiency of the evidence question, this Court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could conclude that the elements of the crime
were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748,
amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992).
Dearborn Ordinances, § 14-92, provides:
Any person who shall commit the offense of larceny, by stealing, of the property of
another, any money, goods or chattels, or any bank note, bank bill, bond, promissory
note, due bill, bill of exchange or other bill, draft, order or certificate, or any book of
accounts for or concerning money or goods due or to become due, or to be delivered,
or any deed or writing containing a conveyance of land, or any other valuable contract
in force, or any receipt, release or defeasance, or any writ, process or public record, if
the property stolen shall be of value of $100.00 or less shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
-1
Because the ordinance is, in relevant part, identical to MCL 750.356; MSA 28.588, we look to the
statute for the essential elements of the crime of larceny. In order to prove larceny under MCL
750.356; MSA 28.588, and, therefore, under the ordinance, the prosecutor must show the following:
(1) an actual or constructive taking of goods or property, (2) an asportation of
the same, (3) with an intent to permanently deprive the owner, (4) of property that does
not belong to the defendant, (5) against the will and without the consent of the owner.
[People v Edwards, 171 Mich App 613, 617; 431 NW2d 83 (1988).]
Circumstantial evidence and all reasonable inferences which arise from the evidence can constitute
satisfactory proof of the elements of the crime. People v Truong (After Remand), 218 Mich App
325, 337; 553 NW2d 692 (1996).
We conclude that the evidence presented in this case was sufficient to permit a rational trier of
fact to find defendant guilty of larceny. The victim, Alpha Griem, lived at the Henry Ford Village
retirement community in Dearborn. Mrs. Griem testified that on January 23, 1995, she placed two
diamond rings beneath her dresser in her bedroom and that they were gone the next evening. Phillip
Doyle, the head of Campus Safety and Emergency Services at Henry Ford, testified that he and another
officer searched Mrs. Griem’s entire apartment but did not find the rings. Mrs. Griem testified that she
never left her apartment between the time she placed the rings under the dresser on January 23 and the
time she discovered they were missing on January 24, and that only her son, Thomas Griem, and
defendant had entered her apartment during that time. Mrs. Griem and her son both testified that he did
not go into the bedroom while he was there. Defendant corroborated Mrs. Griem’s testimony that
defendant was alone in the bedroom on January 24 while Mrs. Griem was eating her breakfast in
another room. While defendant takes issue with the reliability of Mrs. Griem’s testimony, questions
involving the credibility of witness testimony are for the trier of fact to resolve. People v Daniels, 172
Mich App 374, 378; 431 NW2d 846 (1988).
Contrary to defendant’s claim, there is no indication that the district court made any
impermissible or unreasonable inferences. Moreover, while defendant was not the only person with
access to the key that was kept by the health department,1 and Mrs. Griem’s own key could have been
duplicated, the prosecution was not required to negate every reasonable theory of innocence, but only
prove its own theory beyond a reasonable doubt in the face of whatever contradictory evidence
defendant provided. People v Conrad, 189 Mich App 268, 269; 471 NW2d 655 (1991). The
evidence presented was sufficient to prove the essential elements of larceny beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thus, the circuit court erred in reversing defendant’s larceny conviction. Defendant’s conviction is
reinstated.
In her appeal to the circuit court, defendant also claimed that she was denied the effective
assistance of counsel at trial. However, the circuit court’s order does not address this issue, presumably
because the court reversed defendant’s conviction based on insufficient evidence.2 Accordingly, we
remand the matter to the circuit court for consideration of defendant’s remaining ineffective assistance of
counsel claim.
-2
The order of the circuit court is reversed, and defendant’s larceny conviction is reinstated. The
case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
1
Doyle testified that his records indicated that defendant was the only person who signed for the Health
Department on January 24. However, he acknowledged that it could have been checked out without
his knowledge.
2
Although the circuit court purported to rule on this issue from the bench, a court speaks through its
orders, and this Court’s jurisdiction is confined to judgments and orders. Law Offices of Lawrence J.
Stockler, P.C. v Rose, 174 Mich App 14, 54; 436 NW2d 70 (1989); see also MCR 7.203.
-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.