PEOPLE OF MI V ISMAIL HASSAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 5, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 221482
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 97-002744-FH
ISMAIL HASSAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Smolenski and K. F. Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from a conviction of obtaining money by false pretenses,
MCL 750.218; MSA 28.415, for which he was sentenced to three years’ probation. We affirm.
This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. In
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, this Court must review the record de
novo and, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, determine whether a
rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a
reasonable doubt. People v Hoffman, 225 Mich App 103, 111; 570 NW2d 146 (1997); People v
Hammons, 210 Mich App 554, 556; 534 NW2d 183 (1995). Circumstantial evidence and
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom may be sufficient to prove the elements of the crime.
People v Gould, 225 Mich App 79, 86; 570 NW2d 140 (1997). All conflicts in the evidence are
to be resolved in favor of the prosecution. People v Terry, 224 Mich App 447, 452; 569 NW2d
641 (1997).
Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting Judith Ann Seggie, an insurance adjuster.
The elements that must be proved to convict the defendant as an aider and abettor are “(1) the
crime charged was committed by the defendant or some other person, (2) the defendant
performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commission of the crime, and (3) the
defendant intended the commission of the crime or had knowledge that the principal intended its
commission at the time he gave aid and encouragement,” and the defendant’s “state of mind may
be inferred from all the facts and circumstances” of the case. People v Turner, 213 Mich App
558, 568; 540 NW2d 728 (1995). “The term ‘aiding and abetting’ includes all forms of
assistance. The term comprehends ‘all words or deeds which may support, encourage, or incite
-1-
the commission of the crime.’ The amount of aid or advice is immaterial so long as it had the
effect of inducing the crime.” People v Usher, 121 Mich App 345, 350; 328 NW2d 628 (1982)
(citations omitted).
There is no dispute that Seggie committed the crime of larceny by false pretenses. She
falsely reported that the hood and right fender of defendant’s car had been damaged in the
collision to inflate the amount AAA would pay on the claim and AAA, which relied on the
damage report, paid out an extra $182 to which defendant was not entitled. People v Shively, 230
Mich App 626, 631; 584 NW2d 740 (1998). Seggie was part of an insurance fraud scheme in
which defendant’s brother was involved. Defendant had a collision but did not file a police
report. Defendant’s brother steered him to Seggie. Defendant, who lived in Ann Arbor, would
have no reason to go out of his way to submit the claim to a Warren office and take his car there
for inspection unless he expected to get something out of it that an adjuster closer to home would
not provide. Therefore, one could reasonably infer that defendant knew that Seggie was involved
in insurance fraud. By taking his car to her for the estimate, he aided her in committing that
fraud from which he received an extra $182 in payment. Such evidence, if believed, was
sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that each
element of the crime charged had been proved. Therefore, the trial court properly submitted the
case to the jury and did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial or
judgment of acquittal. People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 627; 576 NW2d 129 (1998); People v
Leonard, 224 Mich App 569, 580; 569 NW2d 663 (1997).
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
