PEOPLE OF MI V JANARD DANTE HACKWORTH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 17, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 286988
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 07-020622-FC
JANARD DANTE HACKWORTH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: OWENS, P.J., and O’CONNELL and TALBOT, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction following a jury trial of two counts of
first-degree felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b), one count of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, and
one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL
750.227b. Defendant was found not guilty of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder,
MCL 750.316(1)(a). The trial court sentenced defendant to serve concurrent life sentences for
each murder conviction, a concurrent 225 months to 500 months’ imprisonment for armed
robbery, and a consecutive two years for felony-firearm. We affirm.
Defendant argues that his felony murder convictions are not supported by sufficient
evidence. We review sufficiency claims de novo, People v Lueth, 253 Mich App 670, 680; 660
NW2d 322 (2002), taking all of the evidence presented at trial, resolving all questions of weight
and credibility in favor of the prosecution, and “determin[ing] 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, 751 (1992); see also Jackson v
Virginia, 443 US 307, 319; 99 S Ct 2781, 2789 (1979) (“Once a defendant has been found guilty
of the crime charged, the factfinder’s role as weigher of the evidence is preserved through a legal
conclusion that upon judicial review all of the evidence is to be considered in the light most
favorable to the prosecution.”) (emphasis in original).
Defendant’s sufficiency challenge is focused primarily on the testimony of another man
convicted for his participation in the murders. Defendant asserts that the witness, who pleaded
guilty, had a motivation to lie. This raises a question as to the credibility of the accomplice’s
testimony. Appellate courts must defer to a jury’s superior ability to assess the credibility of the
witnesses who appear before it. People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 124; 631 NW2d 67
(2001).
-1-
Defendant’s accomplice testified that defendant planned to rob one of the victims and
that defendant was armed with a gun. He described in detail how defendant shot both victims in
the head, and how defendant stole money from one victim’s pocket before fleeing the scene.1
Together with medical testimony that one victim died from a gunshot wound to the head and that
the other victim died of gunshot wounds to his neck and face, all of the elements of felony
murder were established. MCL 750.356(1)(a); MCL 750.530(1).2
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
1
Marijuana brought to the encounter by the victims was also taken.
2
Some of defendant’s arguments focus on evidence that the prosecution did not present at trial,
e.g., fingerprints, DNA, and a confession. This Court is not charged with determining what
evidence might have been presented, but with considering if the evidence actually adduced,
when viewed in the appropriate light, was sufficient to uphold the challenged convictions.
-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.
