PEOPLE OF MI V TYRONE PATTERSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 28, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 203809
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 96-005733
TYRONE PATTERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Cavanagh and Fitzgerald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of assault with intent to commit
murder, MCL 750.83; MSA 28.278, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen to
twenty-five years’ imprisonment, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.277, for which he was sentenced to the mandatory two-year
consecutive term. Defendant appeals by right. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On appeal, defendant raises arguments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his
convictions. We review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a
rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. People v Jaffray, 445 Mich 287, 296; 519 NW2d 108 (1994). The prosecution
need not negate every reasonable theory of innocence, but must only prove its own theory beyond a
reasonable doubt in the face of whatever contradictory evidence the defendant provides. People v
Quinn, 219 Mich App 571, 574; 557 NW2d 151 (1996).
The elements of the crime of assault with intent to murder are (1) an assault, (2) with an actual
intent to kill, (3) which, if successful, would make the killing murder. Circumstantial evidence and
reasonable inferences arising from the evidence may constitute satisfactory evidence of the elements of
the offense. The intent to kill may be proven by inference from any facts in evidence. People v Warren
(After Remand), 200 Mich App 586, 588; 504 NW2d 907 (1993).
-1
Here, the physical evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, is
consistent with the theory that defendant intended to shoot through an apartment door in order to kill the
person who had just closed the door on him, and inconsistent with defendant’s accident defense.
Moreover, as noted by the trial court, defendant’s own testimony regarding his ability to engage in goal
directed activity despite his intoxication refutes his claim that he was too intoxicated to have formed the
specific intent necessary for assault with intent to murder. We will not overturn a finding of specific
intent on the basis of intoxication in the absence of overwhelming evidence of the requisite level of
incapacitation. See People v Anderson, 166 Mich App 455, 476-477; 421 NW2d 200 (1988).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
-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.
