PEOPLE OF MI V STEPHEN P DAVIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 27, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 223061
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-011192
STEPHEN P. DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Hood and Griffin, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder,
MCL 750.83, two counts of felonious assault, MCL 750.82, and possession of a firearm during
the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty to
forty years’ imprisonment on the assault with intent to murder conviction and two terms of one to
five years’ imprisonment for the felonious assault convictions, to be served consecutively to the
mandatory two-year term for felony-firearm. Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction
of assault with intent to commit murder. We affirm.
In reviewing a nonjury criminal case, this Court “is required to review the entire record to
determine whether the trial judge clearly erred.” People v Rush, 48 Mich App 478, 482; 210
NW2d 467 (1973). This Court must review the record to determine whether there was sufficient
evidence to warrant a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Garcia, 398 Mich
250, 263; 247 NW2d 547 (1976). The trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
A finding of fact is considered “clearly erroneous if, after review of the entire record, the
appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” People
v Gistover, 189 Mich App 44, 46; 472 NW2d 27 (1991). This Court “will defer to the trial
court’s resolution of factual issues, especially where it involves the credibility of witnesses.”
People v Cartwright, 454 Mich 550, 555; 563 NW2d 208 (1997).
The elements 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. People v Hoffman, 225 Mich
App 103, 111; 570 NW2d 146 (1997). Positive proof that the defendant intended to kill the
victim is not required. People v Moore, 129 Mich App 354, 356; 341 NW2d 149 (1983). The
defendant’s intent to kill may be proven by inference from any facts in evidence, including proof
-1-
of the victim’s injuries, and minimal circumstantial evidence is sufficient. People v Mills, 450
Mich 61, 71; 537 NW2d 909 (1995), modified 450 Mich 1212 (1995); People v McRunels, 237
Mich App 168, 181; 603 NW2d 95 (1999). The intentional discharge of a firearm at someone
within range, done without justification or excuse, is sufficient to prove assault with intent to
commit murder. People v Johnson, 54 Mich App 303, 304; 220 NW2d 705 (1974).
The evidence showed that defendant approached the victim and inquired regarding his
name. When the victim saw that defendant had a gun in his hand, he started to run away.
Defendant followed and fired several shots, striking the victim three times. The victim was
admitted to the hospital in critical condition and remained hospitalized for four weeks. Such
evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable inference that defendant intended to kill the
victim. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
-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.
