PEOPLE OF MI V RICHARD MCALLISTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 4, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 230524
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-010814
RICHARD McALLISTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Doctoroff, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, MCL
750.317, and sentenced to fifteen to sixty years’ imprisonment. He appeals as of right. We
affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
This case arises out of the death of Fredrick Curry following a beating by defendant and
an individual identified as “Doc.” Trial testimony indicated that Doc punched the back of
Curry’s head, knocking him out, while defendant simultaneously hit him in the face. Then,
while Curry lay on the ground, defendant repeatedly jumped up and down on Curry’s head with
both feet while Doc kicked his stomach and leg area. According to medical witnesses, the
beating left Curry with a severe closed head injury that led to a series of medical complications,
ultimately resulting in pneumonia and Curry’s death.
Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. We disagree. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a
bench trial, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to
determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Petrella, 424 Mich 221, 268-269; 380 NW2d 11
(1985); People v Nunez, 242 Mich App 610, 615; 619 NW2d 550 (2000). The elements of
second-degree murder are: (1) a death, (2) caused by an act of the defendant, (3) with malice,
and (4) without justification or excuse. People v Goecke, 457 Mich 442, 463-464; 579 NW2d
868 (1998). Malice is defined as the intent to kill, the intent to do great bodily harm, or the
intent to do an act in wanton and wilful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of
such behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm. Id. at 464.
Defendant’s argument on appeal is cursory and vague. Assuming that defendant is
challenging the causation element, the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the
-1-
prosecution showed that defendant repeatedly jumped up and down on the victim’s head,
contributing to a closed head injury, and the victim’s subsequent death was directly linked to that
head injury. This evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. If defendant is arguing that
there was insufficient evidence that he aided and abetted Doc’s murder of Curry, we also
conclude that sufficient evidence was adduced to support his conviction. The prosecution was
required to show that (1) the crime was committed by defendant or some other person, (2)
defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted in the commission of the crime,
and (3) defendant intended the commission of the crime or had knowledge that Doc intended its
commission at the time he gave aid and encouragement. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757;
597 NW2d 130 (1999). Here, the evidence showed that both defendant and Doc tried to get
money from Curry, Doc delivered a hard blow to Curry’s head, and then defendant repeatedly
kicked Curry in the head while Doc kicked him in the stomach. This evidence was sufficient to
establish that defendant was aware that Doc intended to cause great bodily harm to Curry and
assisted him in the commission of the crime.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
-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.
