PEOPLE OF MI V NATAN TEKLE GEBREMARIAM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 20, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 288215
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 07-012884-FH
NATAN TEKLE GEBREMARIAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: DONOFRIO, P.J., and METER and MURRAY, JJ.
METER, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence to
support defendant’s conviction for carrying a concealed weapon. However, I disagree with the
majority’s analysis concerning the receiving-or-concealing conviction. I would affirm this
conviction, because I believe the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence that defendant knew
the gun in question was stolen.
As stated in People v Westerfield, 71 Mich App 618, 621; 248 NW2d 641 (1976), a
receiving-or-concealing-stolen-property case:
Guilty knowledge, as with most states of mind, cannot generally be proved by
direct evidence absent admission by the defendant. By the very nature of the
element, it must usually be inferred from all of the various circumstances of the
case.
One factor in assessing whether guilty knowledge existed in a receiving-or-concealing case is
whether the defendant possessed the article shortly after it was stolen. People v Salata, 79 Mich
App 415, 421; 262 NW2d 844 (1977). While this factor alone cannot support a conviction, see
People v White, 22 Mich App 65, 68; 176 NW2d 723 (1970), it can be coupled with other
evidence, such as a defendant’s false statements, to sustain a conviction, People v Staples, 68
Mich App 220, 223; 242 NW2d 74 (1976).
Here, the gun in question was recently stolen, and defendant, as noted by the majority,
had possession of it. Moreover, defendant fled from the police and then lied about having done
so. Defendant also made statements to the police trying to dissociate himself from the gun. This
evidence, viewed as a whole, was sufficient to allow the jury to infer guilty knowledge. Some of
-1-
this evidence supported the carrying-a-concealed-weapon conviction, but I also believe that it
properly supported the receiving-or-concealing conviction.
I would affirm this case in its entirety.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.