PEOPLE OF MI V ANGELENE D THOMAS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 30, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 231397
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-000476
ANGELENE D. THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Sawyer and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of aggravated stalking, MCL 750.411i,
and the trial court sentenced her to eighteen months’ probation. Defendant appeals as of right.
We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain her
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).
Stalking occurs when a person engages in a willful course of conduct involving repeated
or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel
terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested, and that actually causes the
victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested. MCL
750.411i(1)(e). “Course of conduct” is defined as two or more separate acts evidencing a
continuity of purpose. MCL 750.411i(1)(a). “Harassment” includes repeated or continuing
unconsented contact, which in turn includes nonconsensual contact by telephone. MCL
750.411i(1)(d), (f)(v). An individual is guilty of aggravated stalking if the conduct involves one
of several special circumstances including the violation of a restraining order. MCL
750.411i(2)(a).
In this case, the evidence showed that defendant repeatedly telephoned the complainant
and that defendant threatened to harm her on at least two occasions. Defendant concedes that the
calls were nonconsensual. A reasonable person would be justified in feeling intimidated by the
threats, especially in light of the complainant’s testimony that defendant acted on her threats to
-1-
damage the complainant’s car. Additionally, the complainant testified that she was actually
threatened by the calls. Finally, the calls were contrary to the terms of a personal protection
order against defendant. While defendant maintains that the complainant was stalking her and
that the complainant’s conduct was inconsistent with a person who felt terrorized, the trial court
apparently chose to believe the complainant’s testimony. Questions regarding the credibility of
the witnesses are for the trier of fact and will not be disturbed by this Court. People v Givans,
227 Mich App 113, 124; 575 NW2d 84 (1997). Viewed in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
