PEOPLE OF MI V STONEY HARRIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 13, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 246158
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-001915-01
STONEY HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Jansen and Talbot, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Stoney Harris was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder,
MCL 750.316, two counts of felony-murder, MCL 750.316, felon in possession of a firearm,
MCL 750.224f, and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b, stemming from the shooting deaths of
Miquel “Gilla” Kimber and Shennell Weber. The trial court vacated the felony-murder
convictions, and defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment, and 2 to 5
years,’ and to a consecutive 5-year term for felony-firearm. We affirm.
Defendant argues on appeal that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to
convict him of first-degree murder either as the principal or as an aider and abettor. We
disagree. This Court reviews the evidence de novo in a light most favorable to the prosecution to
determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the
crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354, 368; 285
NW2d 284 (1979); People v Oliver, 242 Mich App 92, 94-95; 617 NW2d 721 (2000). The
prosecutor need not negate every reasonable theory consistent with innocence. Id. The standard
of review is deferential and this Court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make
credibility choices in support of the jury verdict. People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614
NW2d 78 (2000). People v Griffin, 235 Mich App 27, 31; 597 NW2d 176 (1999).
To convict a defendant of first-degree murder, the prosecution must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally killed the victim and that the killing was
“willful, deliberate, and premeditated.” People v Bowman, 254 Mich App 142, 151; 656 NW2d
835 (2002). Premeditation and deliberation can be proven with inferences drawn from the
surrounding circumstances so long as the record supports those inferences. People v Plummer,
229 Mich App 293, 301; 581 NW2d 753 (1998); People v Anderson, 209 Mich App 527, 537;
531 NW2d 780 (1995). Among the factors that may establish premeditation are, “(1) the
previous relationship between the defendant and the victim; (2) the defendant’s actions before
-1-
and after the crime; and (3) the circumstances of the killing itself, including the weapon used and
the location of the wounds inflicted.” Plummer, supra at 300-301.
To convict a defendant under an aiding-and-abetting theory, the prosecution must prove
that
(1) the crime charged was committed by the defendant or some other person, (2)
the defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commission
of the crime, and (3) the defendant intended the commission of the crime or had
knowledge that the principal intended its commission at the time he gave aid and
encouragement. [People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 768; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).]
Here, the prosecution argued alternative theories. The prosecutor argued that either
defendant was the shooter or that defendant aided and abetted the shooter. Defendant argues
here that neither theory was supported by sufficient evidence. Looking at the evidence in a light
most favorable to the prosecution, we find it sufficient to support defendant’s first-degree murder
convictions.
Decedent Kimber and his girlfriend, decedent Weber were staying in a drug house when
they were shot. There was evidence that Kimber trusted defendant and expected to see him that
night. Kimber and Weber brought a television to the house on the night of the shootings, and
someone they knew, and whom Kimber referred to as “my boy,” was inside the house when they
arrived and opened the door for them. There was no sign of forced entry.
Defendant knew the victims and told the police that he was in the house shortly before
they were killed. Defendant told the police that, on the night of the shooting, in exchange for
$2,000, he left the door open so two armed men could enter the victims’ house and “beat
[Kimber’s] ass.1” Both victims were killed “execution style,” with one shot to the head. Weber
was lying on the couch as if she had been sleeping.
Defendant also told police that after the shootings, he took an AK-47, a carbine rifle, and
Weber’s car keys from the scene. He told someone to dispose of the AK-47 and Weber’s car,
while he kept the carbine, which was never recovered. The witness who took the car and the
AK-47 said he saw defendant wipe down the weapons, including the carbine, as if he were
wiping the weapons clean of fingerprints. The carbine was believed to be the murder weapon.
Defendant’s ex-girlfriend, said that defendant told her that he had “done something” that the
police knew about and needed to get rid of some of his clothing. He also told her that he wanted
her to testify on his behalf.
Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable juror
could have found that the essential elements of first-degree murder were proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. Hampton supra, 407 Mich 368. Defendant’s presence in the house near the
time of the murders, the lack of forced entry, the evidence of the execution-style shootings, along
1
No one else was charged with these murders.
-2-
with defendant’s actions to conceal the crime by getting rid of evidence, all support an inference
that defendant acted with deliberation and premeditation. People v Haywood, 209 Mich App
217, 230; 530 NW2d 497 (1995).
Defendant also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence
regarding his attempt to influence his ex-girlfriend’s testimony. We disagree. A trial court’s
decision regarding the admission of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v
Starr, 457 Mich 490, 494; 577 NW2d 673 (1998), citing People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261; 531
NW2d 659 (1995).
A defendant’s attempt to threaten or otherwise influence a witness is generally admissible
as probative of his consciousness of guilt. People v Sholl, 453 Mich 730, 740; 556 NW2d 851
(1996); People v Mock, 108 Mich App 384, 389; 310 NW2d 390 (1981). Here, defendant’s exgirlfriend testified that he took her at gunpoint and subjected her to physical and verbal abuse
while asking her to testify on his behalf. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
her testimony regarding what she characterized as a kidnapping.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-3-
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.
