PEOPLE OF MI V KEITH LAMONT JOHNSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 18, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 277904
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2006-211949-FH
KEITH LAMONT JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Zahra and Owens, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of conspiracy to commit uttering
and publishing, MCL 750.157a; MCL 750.249, uttering and publishing, MCL 750.249, and
forgery of a driver’s license with the intent to aid in the commission of an offense punishable by
imprisonment for ten or more years, MCL 257.310(7)(a). He was sentenced, as a fourth habitual
offender, MCL 769.12, to 3 to 20 years’ imprisonment for each conviction. We affirm. We
decide this case without oral argument under MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to sustain convictions for
uttering and publishing and conspiracy to commit uttering and publishing. We disagree.
A claim of insufficiency of the evidence invokes a defendant’s constitutional right to due
process of law, which we review de novo on appeal. People v Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439, 457;
628 NW2d 105 (2001). “[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 any rational trier 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, amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences
arising from the evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of the crime. People v
Truong (After Remand), 218 Mich App 325, 337; 553 NW2d 692 (1996). “[A] reviewing 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).
“Uttering and publishing consists of three elements: ‘(1) knowledge on the part of the
defendant that the instrument was false; (2) an intent to defraud; and (3) presentation of the
forged instrument for payment.’” Hawkins, supra at 457, quoting People v Shively, 230 Mich
-1-
App 626, 631; 584 NW2d 740 (1998); see also MCL 750.249. The prosecution of defendant for
the crime of uttering and publishing relied, in part, on a theory of aiding and abetting.
“Aiding and abetting” describes all forms of assistance rendered to the perpetrator
of a crime and comprehends all words or deeds that might support, encourage, or
incite the commission of a crime . . . . To support a finding that a defendant aided
and abetted a crime, the prosecutor must show 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, 757; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) (quotation and
citation omitted).]
Defendant argues that the trial record is devoid of any evidence, other than mere
speculation, on the issue of whether defendant aided and abetted others in the perpetration of the
crime. This argument fails. First, the facts support an inference that Frank Davis and Raymond
Davis1 were with defendant and committed the crime of uttering and publishing. Neither Frank
nor Raymond were employed by Lourdes Campus Assisted Living (“Lourdes”), both possessed
identification cards with change of address stamps, and the change of address stamps matched
the addresses on the fraudulent checks. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that
Frank and Raymond both knew that the payroll checks were fraudulent and intended to defraud
by presenting the checks at Meijer, thereby committing the crime.
Second, viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the prosecution, there is sufficient
evidence for a jury to find that defendant assisted Frank and Raymond in the commission of the
crime. Defendant possessed a social security card and identification not in his name. In
addition, on the back of the identification card was a suspect change of address stamp, similar to
the change of address stamp on the identifications presented by Frank and Raymond. Defendant
also traveled with Frank and Raymond in the same van that was used only a few days prior in a
separate attempt to cash a Lourdes payroll check at Meijer. Further, defendant possessed the
check Frank attempted to cash at Meijer. Defendant even hid the Lourdes payroll checks and
check stubs in his sock. The checks in defendant’s sock all had the same check number and were
made out to Frank and Raymond. In light of this, it is reasonable to infer that defendant
performed acts or gave encouragement, and he intended the commission of the crime or had
knowledge that Frank or Raymond intended the commission of the crime at the time he gave aid
or encouragement. Moreover, defendant’s intention to commit the crime can be inferred from
his statement in jail that he will get one to three years for this offense. Therefore, sufficient
evidence existed to support defendant’s conviction of uttering and publishing under an aiding
and abetting theory.
1
The record does not indicate any familial relationship between Frank Davis and Raymond
Davis.
-2-
Defendant also claims there is insufficient evidence to show he conspired to commit the
crime of uttering and publishing. This argument has no merit. A conspiracy is a voluntary
mutual agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act. People v Blume, 443
Mich 476, 481; 505 NW2d 843 (1993). The prosecutor must prove that the parties “specifically
intended to further, promote, advance, or pursue an unlawful objective.” People v Justice (After
Remand), 454 Mich 334, 347; 562 NW2d 652 (1997). A conspiracy is complete upon formation
of the agreement; therefore, no positive act in furtherance of the conspiracy must be shown to
support a conviction. People v Cotton, 191 Mich App 377, 393; 478 NW2d 681 (1991). Proof
of a conspiracy can be drawn from the circumstances, acts, and conduct of parties during the
crime, and inferences are permissible. Justice, supra at 347.
Taken in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable juror could infer that
defendant, Frank, Raymond, and Jill Perry made a voluntary mutual agreement to utter and
publish. As noted above, defendant traveled in the van used only days before his arrest in a
separate attempt to cash a Lourdes payroll check. It can be inferred that defendant and others
pursued the unlawful objective of uttering and publishing because he hid in his sock the check
Frank attempted to cash in Meijer. Defendant not only had the checks made out to Frank and
Raymond, but also two check stubs made out to Raymond. Defendant possessed identification
that had a change of address stamp on the back similar to Frank’s and Raymond’s identification
cards with address stamps that matched the bad checks. Also creating the inference of
defendant’s involvement in a conspiracy is his admission in jail that he was going to do one to
three years for this offense and his advice to Perry not to talk to make things easier. From this, it
is reasonable to infer that defendant and the other parties attempting to cash Lourdes payroll
checks made a voluntary agreement in furtherance of the goal to commit the crime of uttering
and publishing.
Affirmed.
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
