PEOPLE OF MI V GOLETHA KERENIA BURDEYTE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 30, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 250025
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-009517-01
GOLETHA KERENIA BURDEYTE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Wilder and Schuette, JJ.
MEMORANDUM
Defendant appeals as of right from her jury trial conviction for malicious destruction of
property (building of another with destruction valued at $1,000 or more but less than $20,000),
MCL 750.380(3)(a). Defendant was sentenced to two years’ probation. We affirm. This case is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant argues on appeal that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to
support her conviction. We disagree.
“[W]hen determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a
conviction, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and
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 Johnson, 460 Mich 720, 723; 597
NW2d 73 (1999).
“To be convicted of malicious destruction of property, a defendant must have intended to
injure or destroy the property in question.” People v Nelson, 234 Mich App 454, 459; 594
NW2d 114 (1999). “Intent may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances.” Id.
The evidence showed that defendant was very upset after having been evicted from her
home. She was seen breaking and entering the house with a pry bar. The landlord testified that
there was no damage to the house before defendant broke into it but that there was over $1,000
of damage to the doors and doorjambs after defendant had finished retrieving her belongings
from inside. Giving deference to the jury’s determination of the weight and credibility of the
evidence, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it is reasonable
to infer that defendant caused over $1,000 damage to the house with the requisite intent. We
-1-
conclude that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson, supra, 460 Mich 723.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
