PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT RILEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 5, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 211368
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 97-005401
ROBERT RILEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
ON REMAND
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and White, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring).
I agree that if there was insufficient evidence of murder at the close of the prosecution’s
proofs, trial counsel’s failure to move for a directed verdict was ineffective and prejudicial, and
defendant’s felony-murder conviction must be reversed. I write separately because I do not
agree that there was insufficient evidence of defendant’s participation in the murder without
McKinney’s testimony.1
The prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to withstand a motion for directed verdict. The
jury was not obliged to accept defendant’s statement that he did not participate in the murder, or
know of Ware’s plan to murder the victim. The jury could have concluded based on defendant’s
bringing Ware to the victim’s apartment, his excluding the victim’s neighbor from the apartment
while Ware was strangling him, his participation in the larceny, and the victim’s size and
strength in comparison to defendant and co-defendant, that defendant aided and abetted Ware in
the murder.
1
I concur in the disposition despite my conclusion that the prosecution presented sufficient
evidence because I conclude that the insufficiency of the evidence without McKinney’s
testimony has been established by the law of the case. In this Court’s earlier opinion, in which I
did not participate, the Court determined that there was insufficient evidence of murder without
McKinney’s testimony. The prosecution did not seek to challenge that ruling on appeal, but
argued that defendant waived the hearsay objection by presenting McKinney’s testimony. The
Supreme Court agreed, and reversed and remanded on that basis. While the Supreme Court has
not addressed the sufficiency of the evidence without McKinney’s testimony, this Court has, and
that ruling has not been disturbed.
-1-
I would affirm.
/s/ Helene N. White
-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.