IN RE MIGUEL SOLIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re MIGUEL SOLIS, Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 25, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 224339
Van Buren Circuit Court
Juvenile Division
LC No. 99-012065-01
MIGUEL SOLIS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Collins, P.J., and Hoekstra and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from a jury conviction of assault and battery, MCL
750.81; MSA 28.276. The order of disposition made respondent a temporary ward of the court to
remain in the care and custody of his mother. Further, the order of disposition required
respondent to write a letter of apology to the victim, complete twenty hours of community
service, follow guidelines of behavior, and pay a $25 service fee as well as a $20 victim’s rights
fee. We affirm.
Respondent first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his assault and
battery conviction. Specifically, respondent argues that the victim could not have seen who was
engaged in the assault because the victim’s glasses were broken during the initial contact and
another attacker was hitting the victim in his face, thereby impairing his ability to see the entire
event. Respondent further argues that other evidence did not substantiate the victim’s
allegations. We disagree.
When determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction,
this Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine
whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Johnson, 460 Mich 720, 722-723; 597 NW2d 73
(1999); People v Godbold, 230 Mich App 508, 522; 585 NW2d 13 (1998).
“A simple assault is either an attempt to commit a battery or an unlawful act that places
another in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery. A battery is the
consummation of an assault. People v Terry, 217 Mich App 660, 662; 553 NW2d 23 (1996)
-1-
(citations omitted). Stated another way, “[a] battery, or assault and battery, is the wilful touching
of the person of another by the aggressor or by some substance put in motion by him . . . .”
Tinkler v Richter, 295 Mich 396, 401; 295 NW 201 (1940), quoting CJS, p 796, § 1; People v
Lakeman, 135 Mich App 226, 239; 353 NW2d 493 (1984).
Here, not only did the victim identify respondent as one of his attackers, but other
witnesses testified that respondent hit or kicked the victim. Viewing this evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecutor, we find that there was sufficient evidence from which a rational trier
of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Respondent also argues that the trial court failed to give proper jury instructions on the
elements of the crime and therefore this case should be remanded for a new trial. Because
respondent not only failed to object to the instructions given at trial, but also affirmed that the
instructions were complete before they were read and subsequently affirmed that they were read
correctly, respondent has waived his right to appellate review. People v Carter, 462 Mich 206,
216; 612 NW2d 144 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
