PEOPLE OF MI V ADOLPH GLASPER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 11. 1996
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 186785
LC No. 94-3534 FC
ADOLPH GLASPER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and O’Connell and T.L. Ludington,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his convictions by jury of one count of first-degree murder, MCL
750.316; MSA 28.548, two counts of assault with intent to commit murder, MCL 750.83; MSA
28.278, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. MCL
750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). We affirm.
Defendant was a member of the “Gangster Disciples” youth gang. On November 13, 1994, he
became involved in a verbal altercation with, apparently, members of a rival gang, the “Vice Lords.”
As he was leaving the scene of the dispute in an automobile driven by his acquaintance Darryl Brooks,
shots were fired. Brooks later testified that the shots struck the driver’s side door of the automobile.
Later that evening, defendant; his codefendant at trial, Joe Acklin; another individual; and
Brooks returned to an area frequented by members of the Vice Lords. Brooks, again driving,
approached a party store believed to be popular with the Vice Lords with his headlights turned off.
Defendant was now armed with a Glock nine millimeter handgun, and Acklin had a .22 caliber handgun.
The two opened fire indiscriminately at those standing near the store, killing Jermaine Blakely and
injuring two others. A .22 caliber bullet was subsequently recovered from the body of Blakely.
Defendant stood trial and was convicted of, among other things, one count of first-degree murder for
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
the killing of Blakely, prosecuted under an aiding and abetting theory, and two counts of assault with
intent to commit murder for the wounding of the other two individuals.
On appeal, defendant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction of
first-degree murder. He contends that because the evidence produced at trial clearly established that
the bullet that killed Blakely was not fired from the gun that defendant was using, and because there was
no evidence of a conspiracy to kill Blakely, his conviction of first-degree murder must be reversed.
Defendant raised this issue below in a motion for directed verdict. When reviewing the denial of a
motion for directed verdict, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the charged
crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Jolly, 442 Mich 458, 466; 502 NW2d 177
(1993).
As noted above, defendant was prosecuted under an aiding and abetting theory. “Aiding and
abetting” includes all forms of assistance rendered to the perpetrator of a crime and comprehends all
words and deeds that might support, encourage, or incite the commission of a crime. People v Turner,
213 Mich App 558, 569; 540 NW2d 728 (1995). To support a finding that a defendant aided and
abetted in the commission of a crime, the prosecution must present evidence of the following: first, that
the crime charged was committed; second, that the defendant performed acts or gave encouragement
which assisted in the commission of the crime; and, third, that 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 Jones (On Rehearing), 201 Mich App 449, 451; 506 NW2d 542 (1993).
The court may consider a wide range of factors when determining whether a defendant has aided and
abetted in the commission of a crime. Turner, supra.
Our review indicates that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of first
degree murder. Defendant does not challenge the first factor set forth in Jones, that the crime charged
was committed. With respect to the latter two factors encouragement and intent, the circumstantial
evidence surrounding the offense easily supports the inferences, see Jolly, supra, p 466, that defendant
both intended the commission of the crime and encouraged his codefendant to commit that crime:
defendant and his codefendant had a common motive, revenge, and were members of the same gang;
they appear to have planned the attack during the period immediately after Brooks’ automobile was
fired on; both were armed; both began shooting almost simultaneously; and both reacted similarly after
the crime had been committed. In light of this evidence, we find no error in the court’s denial of
defendant’s motion for directed verdict.
Defendant emphasizes that he did not fire the bullet that killed Blakely. While this is true, it is
immaterial. Under the present facts, even Brooks, the driver of the automobile, could have been
convicted of first-degree murder despite the fact that he fired no shots. See People v Anderson, 166
Mich App 455, 474-475; 421 NW2d 200 (1988). While defendant attempts to portray the criminal
episode underlying his conviction as being composed of distinct crimes – his codefendant shot Blakely;
he shot the others – the evidence indicates that defendant and his codefendant conducted an
indiscriminate, scattershot drive-by shooting. The underlying intent of defendant and his codefendant to
-2
commit premeditated murder encompasses the specific acts of each in effecting that intent, and the acts
of each are properly imputed to the other.
Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions of assault
with intent to commit murder. These convictions were predicated on the injuries sustained by the two
victims who were not killed. However, ample evidence was put forth at trial to demonstrate that
defendant committed these assaults with an actual intent to kill which, if successful, would make the
killing murder. See People v Lugo, 214 Mich App 699, 710; 542 NW2d 921 (1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Thomas L. Ludington
-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.
