IN RE CARNELLIUS ADAMS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CARNELLIUS ADAMS, Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 30, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 292697
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-390737
CARNELLIUS ADAMS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and SERVITTO and SHAPIRO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent, a juvenile, was adjudicated guilty of two counts of aggravated assault, MCL
750.81a, and violation of a city ordinance. He appeals as of right from the trial court’s
dispositional order removing him from his home and referring him to the care and supervision of
the Department of Human Services. We affirm.
Respondent’s adjudications arise from an altercation at a high school in which respondent
physically assaulted Brandon Tennille, an assistant project director at the school, and then later
assaulted a responding police officer, Officer White. According to the testimony, respondent
punched Tennille in the face and “body slammed” him on the floor, and then ran head first into
White, tackled her, and caused her to fall backward. White landed on her back on the floor with
respondent on top of her; the force of the hit or fall knocked at least one of her shoes off.
On appeal, respondent argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish the
aggravated injury element of aggravated assault with respect to the assaults against Tennille and
White and, therefore, the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. We
disagree.
When reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion for a directed verdict,
this Court reviews the record de novo to determine whether the evidence
presented by the prosecutor, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecutor,
could persuade a rational trier of fact that the essential elements of the crime
charged were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [People v Brown, 279 Mich
App 116, 136; 755 NW2d 664 (2008), (citation and quotation omitted).]
-1-
MCL 750.81a(1) provides:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who assaults an
individual without a weapon and inflicts serious or aggravated injury upon that
individual without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less
than murder is guilty of a misdemeanor . . . .
“A serious or aggravated injury is a physical injury that requires immediate medical treatment or
that causes disfigurement, impairment of health, or impairment of a part of the body.” CJI2d
17.6; see also People v Brown, 97 Mich App 606, 611; 296 NW2d 121 (1980).
In this case, Tennille testified that his wrist and shoulder was injured in the assault, and
the shoulder injury resulted in a torn muscle, for which he received medical treatment on the day
of the assault. He was still suffering lingering effects of the injury at the time of trial. White
testified that her neck and upper back were injured during the assault. She went to a clinic or
hospital that day where she was x-rayed and diagnosed with a strain and prescribed medication.
At the time of trial, approximately three months after the assault, she still experienced pain or
discomfort in her neck from the injury. The testimony describing the nature of the complainants’
injuries, the necessity of medical treatment, and the continuing lingering effects, viewed in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to
conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent inflicted a serious or aggravated injury on
each complainant. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying respondent’s motion for a
directed verdict.
Although not mentioned in respondent’s statement of the issues, respondent asserts that
the trial court abused its discretion1 by committing him to the Department of Human Services.
“An abuse of discretion standard acknowledges that there will be circumstances in which there
will be no single correct outcome; rather, there will be more than one reasonable and principled
outcome.” People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 269; 666 NW2d 231 (2003). “When the trial court
selects one of these principled outcomes, the trial court has not abused its discretion and thus, it
is proper for the reviewing court to defer to the trial court’s judgment.” Id.
Having reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion. The trial court listened to
arguments from both sides, as well as testimony from respondent’s mother. He asked respondent
whether he had anything to add, and respondent simply said “no.” The trial court reviewed the
report from the clinic for child study and quoted several passages from it in making his decision:
“Despite his behavioral difficulties within the school setting, [respondent]
remains quite resistant to admitting any personal shortcomings. Intends [sic] to
1
The trial court’s sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See People v Thenghkam, 240
Mich App 26, 36-37; 610 NW2d 571 (2000), overruled on other grounds by People v Petty, 469
Mich 108; 665 NW2d 443 (2003); People v Passeno, 195 Mich App 91, 103-105; 489 NW2d
152 (1992) overruled on other grounds by People v Bigelow, 229 Mich App 218; 581 NW2d 744
(1998).
-2-
act indifferently about the role that he played in creating his difficulties with
school authorities and peers.”
The next paragraph says:
“It would not be unlike [respondent] to avoid taking seriously his legal and
school difficulties. An[] attitude of acting as though ‘nothing can happen to me’
will incline [respondent] to take troubling [sic] at first with calmness, if not with
disdain.”
And part of this problem is his parents are making excuses for him. He’s
got all kind of problems going on, and instead of standing up as parents should,
and saying this young man has trouble, he should be sanctioned for it, they make
excuses for him.
And that’s part of the problem with young men like [respondent], why
they’re having trouble in life.
And that’s why [respondent] needs to be placed. Because [respondent]
doesn’t think anything is going to happen to him when he acts out and engages in
bad behavior.
Well, in this courtroom there are consequences.
consequences for bad action.
And there are
As the trial court was making its ruling and indicated that respondent’s actions told the trial court
it was making the right decision, respondent burst out “How can you say you making the right
decision—.” The trial court then reiterated that “your entire actions tell me that [placement] is
exactly correct. . . . I’ve seen this young man’s behavior in this courtroom. And I’m reading
about—I’m seeing his parents’ actions, and I’m seeing the 33 incidents,2 and I’m seeing the
behavior, and I heard the trial of what he did to those people,” at which point respondent blurted
out “Was you a witness to it?” The trial court indicated it was “very comfortable with this
decision.”
Not only do we give great deference to the trial court’s unique ability to assess
respondent’s demeanor, see MCR 2.613(C), but we note that respondent’s belligerence and anger
issues are evident even in the written record. In addition, his mother’s testimony supported the
trial court’s determination that his parents continued to make excuses for him. Taken together
with respondent’s 33 previous suspensions for violent, destructive, or anger-related actions,
which appeared to have no impact on his behavior, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial
court’s assessment that respondent should be committed to the Department of Human Services.
2
Respondent had been suspended from school 33 times for “disruptive misconduct, fighting,
interference with or intimidation of school personnel, vandalism, or intentional destruction of
property, insubordination, other prohibited conduct, threats of violence, verbal abuse, and battery
upon an employee.”
-3-
Finally, respondent complains that this Court improperly designated this appeal as a
priority “custody” appeal. After respondent filed his brief, however, this Court determined that
the “custody” designation was improperly added due to a clerical error and, accordingly,
removed the designation. Therefore, this issue is moot and we decline to consider it. People v
Claypool, 470 Mich 715, 723 n 8; 684 NW2d 278 (2004).
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ /Deborah A. Servitto
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
-4-
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.
