PEOPLE OF MI V DARRIN DUANE WILSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 26, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 278875
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 06-001322-FC
DARRIN DUANE WILSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Jansen and Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of carjacking, MCL
750.529a, two counts of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, one count of possession of a firearm
during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b, one count of receiving or
concealing a stolen motor vehicle, MCL 750.535(7), and one count of third-degree fleeing and
eluding, MCL 257.602a(3). Defendant appeals as of right, challenging only the sufficiency of
evidence as to his identification. We affirm.
Defendant’s argument centers around the fact that the victims of the crimes initially
identified someone else as the perpetrator in a photo lineup and only later, at the corporeal lineup
and in court, identified defendant as the perpetrator. Considering the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, as this Court must do when reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we
hold that a rational trier of fact could have found that his identity was proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. People v Sherman-Huffman, 466 Mich 39, 40; 642 NW2d 339 (2002). When
reviewing sufficiency challenges, deference should be afforded to all reasonable inferences and
determinations of credibility made by the jury. People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614
NW2d 78 (2000).
In this case, there was substantial circumstantial evidence linking defendant to the crimes
in addition to the positive identification of him as the perpetrator by the victims both in court and
at a corporeal lineup. Defendant points to discrepancies like the prior misidentification at the
photo lineup and the testimony that the perpetrator was dressed in clothing dissimilar to the
clothing defendant was wearing at the time of his arrest. However, the jury could have
determined defendant had changed clothing since there was a significant period of time that
defendant was unaccounted for after the commission of the crimes. Additionally, defendant was
not included in the photo lineup, so the jury could have reasonably found defendant’s exclusion
was the reason for the misidentification. Regardless of the few contradictions in the evidence,
-1-
the jury found defendant’s identity as the perpetrator had been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. Id. “The credibility of identification testimony is a question for the trier of fact that we
do not resolve anew.” People v Davis, 241 Mich App 697, 700; 617 NW2d 381 (2000). With
this standard in mind, the jury properly found there was sufficient evidence identifying defendant
as the perpetrator of the charged crimes.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
