PEOPLE OF MI V RAHIM SALAAM

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED April 25, 2000 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 207954 Wayne Circuit Court LC Nos. 97-001325; 97-001326 RAHIM SALAAM, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Collins, P.J., and Neff and Smolenski, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Defendant appeals as of right his convictions for entering without breaking, MCL 750.111; MSA 28.306, domestic violence, MCL 750.81(2); MSA 28.276(2), felonious assault, MCL 750.82; MSA 28.277, assault with intent to commit great bodily harm, MCL 750.84; MSA 28.279 and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2), entered after a bench trial. We affirm. On appeal, defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for assault with intent to commit great bodily harm. In determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, a reviewing court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and determine whether any rational finder of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992). At trial, complainant testified that she h eard defendant’s voice threatening her just before the shooting, while another witness testified that she saw defendant running from the side of complainant’s house shortly after the shooting. This evidence, together with the physical evidence of the bullet holes and the injury received by complainant’s son, was clearly sufficient to support defendant’s conviction. The trial court could reasonably conclude that defendant intended to commit an assault by firing shots into the house in the vicinity of complainant’s bedroom. People v Harrington, 194 Mich App 424, 430; 487 NW2d 479 (1992). -1­ Affirmed. /s/ Jeffrey G. Collins /s/ Janet T. Neff /s/ Michael R. Smolenski -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.