PEOPLE OF MI V JEROME BOWENS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 19, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 236342
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-013104
JEROME BOWENS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Gage and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial conviction for assault with intent to murder,
MCL 750.83, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b.
We affirm.
Defendant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had the requisite
intent to murder where he was intoxicated at the time of the assault. In determining whether
sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, a reviewing court must view the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and determine whether any rational finder
of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992).
A defense of intoxication is only proper if the facts of the case could allow the factfinder
to conclude that the defendant’s intoxication was so great the defendant was unable to form the
necessary intent. People v Mills, 450 Mich 61, 82-83; 537 NW2d 909 (1995). The appearance
of intoxication by itself is insufficient to support the defense. Id. No evidence was presented
that would show that defendant was too intoxicated to form the necessary intent. The
prosecution sustained its burden of proving specific intent.1
1
Although not applicable to the present case, we note that 2002 PA 366 now makes voluntary
intoxication “an affirmative defense to a specific intent crime, for which the defendant has the
burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she voluntarily consumed a
legally obtained and properly used medication or other substance and did not know and
reasonably should not have known that he or she would become intoxicated or impaired.” MCL
768.37.]
-1-
Defendant also argues that there was no evidence of serious psychological injury to
support the scoring of ten points for OV 4, MCL 777.34. A sentencing court has discretion in
determining the number of points to be scored, provided that evidence of record adequately
supports a particular score. People v Leversee, 243 Mich App 337, 349; 622 NW2d 325 (2000).
Scoring decisions for which there is any evidence as support will be upheld on appeal. People v
Hornsby, 251 Mich App 462, 468; 650 NW2d 700 (2002). Where the victim was shot seven
times at close range, the court could reasonably conclude that he suffered a serious psychological
injury requiring professional treatment.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
