PEOPLE OF MI V LESLIE BERNARD LITTLEJOHN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 19, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 192673
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 95-005354
KENNETH LEON LITTLEJOHN,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 192674
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 95-005354
LESLIE BERNARD LITTLEJOHN,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________________
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants were convicted by a jury of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797.
Defendant Kenneth Littlejohn was sentenced to a term of six to fifteen years’ imprisonment and
defendant Leslie Littlejohn was sentenced to a term of five to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Defendants
appeal as of right. We affirm.
Viewing all the facts and circumstances, including the reasonable inferences arising therefrom, in
a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a rational factfinder could have found
beyond a reasonable doubt that some person or persons committed the crime of armed robbery, that
defendants performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commission of this crime, and that
-1
defendants intended to commit armed robbery or knew that the p
rincipal or principals intended to
commit armed robbery at the time defendants gave their aid and
-2
encouragement. People v Johnson, 215 Mich App 658, 671; 547 NW2d 65 (1996); People v Sean
Jones (On Rehearing), 201 Mich App 449, 451; 506 NW2d 542 (1993). The evidence was
sufficient to support defendants’ convictions and the trial court, therefore, did not err in denying
defendants’ post-trial motions for a directed verdict of acquittal. See MCR 6.431(D); People v
Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 633-634; 576 NW2d 129 (1998).
Viewing the jury instructions in their entirety, we find no error because the jury was adequately
instructed on intent necessary to be convicted of armed robbery as an aider and abettor. People v
Davis, 216 Mich App 47, 54; 549 NW2d 1 (1996).
Finally, in denying defendants’ motion for a new trial, the trial court reasoned that ascertaining
whether defendants were guilty of armed robbery was a matter properly left to the jury. We find no
abuse of discretion in this ruling. People v Plummer, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket
No. 199770, issued 4/10/98), slip op p 6-7.
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.