PEOPLE OF MI V GREGORY GEISE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 23, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 280814
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 07-004746-01
GREGORY GEISE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Servitto, P.J., and Donofrio and Fort Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted, following a bench trial, of felonious assault. MCL 750.82. He
was sentenced as an habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12, to 3 to 15 years’
imprisonment, and he appeals as of right. We affirm.
The facts presented at trial establish that defendant and an acquaintance, Timothy Sparks,
attacked the victim. During the altercation, defendant struck the victim “approximately three
times” with an object on the left side of the head before defendant and the victim fell off of the
victim’s porch into the yard, which contained a garden rock and a birdbath. Defendant and
Sparks left the victim in the yard bleeding from the side of his head. The victim received
approximately 22 stitches for head lacerations. Defendant argues that the verdict was against the
great weight of the evidence or there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for
felonious assault with a dangerous weapon where the victim provided inconsistent testimony that
raises doubt about whether a dangerous weapon was used during the attack, and reasonable
doubt regarding whether it was defendant, as opposed to the objects on the ground in the yard,
that caused the victim’s injuries.
While a new trial may be granted if a verdict is found to be against the great weight of the
evidence, a new trial should be granted only when “the evidence preponderates heavily against
the verdict” and a “serious miscarriage of justice” would result if a new trial was not awarded.
People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 639, 642; 576 NW2d 129 (1998). Where, as here, a great
weight of the evidence argument is based on conflicting evidence, the question of credibility
ordinarily should be left for the factfinder. Lemmon, supra at 642-643. Only where the evidence
relied upon for conviction is deprived of all probative value or contradicts indisputable physical
facts or defies physical realities is a new trial warranted based on contradictory evidence.
Lemmon, supra at 646-647. Additionally, the trial court's factual findings in a bench trial will
not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous where, although there is
-1-
evidence to support it, the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake has been made.
People v United States Currency, 164 Mich App 171, 179; 416 NW2d 700 (1987). Further, the
standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is de novo, and this Court must review
“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 Johnson, 460 Mich 720, 723; 597 NW2d 73 (1999); People v
Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 399-400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000). This is a highly deferential standard of
review; it requires the reviewing court to respect the trier of fact’s determinations regarding
proper inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and to determine the weight to give those
inferences. People v Hardiman, 466 Mich 417, 428; 646 NW2d 158 (2002). Evidentiary
conflicts must be resolved in favor of the prosecution. People v Fletcher, 260 Mich App 531,
562; 679 NW2d 127 (2004).
MCL 750.82 provides in relevant part:
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who assaults another person
with a gun, revolver, pistol, knife, iron bar, club, brass knuckles, or other
dangerous weapon without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily
harm less than murder is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not
more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or both.
The elements of felonious assault are 1) an assault, 2) with a dangerous weapon, and 3) with
intent to injure or place a victim in reasonable fear of a battery. People v Lawton, 196 Mich App
341, 349; 492 NW2d 810 (1992). Objects that are not specifically listed in the statute as
dangerous may be deemed dangerous within the meaning of the statute if they are used in a
manner that may endanger life or inflict great bodily harm. See People v Buford, 69 Mich App
27, 30; 244 NW2d 351 (1976), and People v Knapp, 34 Mich App 325, 333; 191 NW2d 155
(1971).
The evidence was clearly sufficient to support the verdict. The testimony of the victim,
and the physical evidence of injury established that an assault took place. The undisputed
testimony of the victim was that defendant and Sparks ambushed the victim on his front porch
and hit him with an object on the left side of his head. While the victim was unclear as to the
nature of the object, he consistently testified that defendant hit him with an object during the
assault; it is immaterial for the purposes of MCL 750.82 if it is definitely established at trial that
the object was a rock. The statute’s definition of “other dangerous weapon” is inclusive and may
include a “pin” or a “rock” so long as the object is used in a manner that may endanger life or
inflict great bodily harm. Buford, supra; Knapp, supra. The trial court deemed the victim’s
testimony to be credible and the inconsistencies argued by defendant on appeal do not rise to the
standard established in Lemmon, supra at 646-647, as they do not “deprive” the victim’s
testimony of “all probative value…contradict indisputable physical facts or” defy “physical
realities.” When the evidence is reviewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, it clearly
establishes the elements of felonious assault beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict was not
-2-
against the great weight of the evidence.
Affirmed.
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.