PEOPLE OF MI V CHRISTOPHER PATRICK MAXWELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
January 22, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 267247
Bay Circuit Court
LC No. 05-010032-FH
CHRISTOPHER PATRICK MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Beckering, P.J., and Sawyer and Fort Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction following a jury trial of indecent
exposure, MCL 750.335a, and being a disorderly person (obscene conduct in a public place),
MCL 750.167(1)(f). The jury found defendant not guilty of one count of accosting a minor for
immoral purposes, MCL 750.145a(a), and deadlocked on another accosting count. Defendant
was sentenced to 365 days in jail with 325 days credit for indecent exposure and to 90 days in
jail with 90 days credit for disorderly person. We affirm. This case is being decided without
oral argument under MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that insufficient evidence was adduced below to
support his conviction for indecent exposure. We disagree. We review an insufficiency of
evidence claim de novo to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, would justify a rational trier of fact in finding that all the elements
of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Lange, 251 Mich App 247, 250;
650 NW2d 691 (2002). The issue of the credibility of the witnesses presents an issue for the trier
of fact to resolve, and we do not address credibility questions anew. People v Avant, 235 Mich
App 499, 506; 597 NW2d 864 (1999). Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences that
arise from the evidence can constitute sufficient proof of the elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).
An indecent exposure occurs when a person knowingly makes any open or indecent
exposure of his person or of the person of another. People v Neal, 266 Mich App 654, 656; 702
NW2d 696 (2005); MCL 750.335a. In the present case, defendant does not dispute that an open
or indecent exposure involving masturbation occurred, but rather that he was the individual who
committed any such exposure. Specifically, defendant asserts that the victim of the indecent
exposure was unable to identify him in a line-up or in court. Defendant further asserts that the
-1-
victim identified her assailant as dark skinned or Hispanic when defendant is not dark skinned
because he “is a Scot.”
Although the victim to the indecent exposure did not identify defendant as her assailant,
she testified that she was in the school parking lot getting her books out of her car when she
heard a man’s voice say, “Hey baby.” The driver of a black car had his window partially rolled
down, and the victim could see that the man was masturbating. It was approximately 7:30 a.m.,
and the victim identified the vehicle license plate as containing both a “Z” and a “B.” The victim
thought that the perpetrator was dark skinned or Hispanic, but she did not get a good look at him.
Other females reported being approached by a man in a dark vehicle within the same area at
approximately the same time. One of these females was able to obtain a license plate number of
“ZBE 859.” A school liaison for the local high school was assigned to prevent loitering and to
check license plates. She observed a dark vehicle with the license plate number “ZBE 889,” and
the license plate number was assigned to a vehicle driven by defendant. Although the victim of
the indecent exposure was unable to identify defendant as her assailant, the female student who
obtained a full license plate number identified defendant as the person driving a black car who
made statements to her.
In light of the circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences that arise from this
evidence, there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of indecent exposure. The fact that
the victim may have been mistaken about the ethnicity of the perpetrator is not dispositive. The
jury is “free to believe or disbelieve, in whole or in part, any of the evidence presented at trial.”
People v Eisenberg, 72 Mich App 106, 115; 249 NW2d 313 (1976). Thus, the jury was entitled
to conclude that defendant perpetrated the offense and that the victim was mistaken in her
description. Accordingly, defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without
merit.1
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
1
Defendant does not address each conviction and the elements of each offense. Rather, the
defense makes a blanket challenge to sufficiency by concluding that the victim was not credible
because she did not make a positive identification and did not accurately describe defendant’s
ethnicity. However, there also was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of disorderly person,
MCL 750.167(f), for the reasons stated above. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence to
support this conviction. Carines, supra.
-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.
