PEOPLE OF MI V BASIL JARJUS AKRAWI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 14, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 191805
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 94-012493-FH
BASIL JARJUS AKRAWI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Sawyer and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his convictions by bench trial for receiving and concealing
stolen property valued at more than $100, MCL 750.535; MSA 28.803, and conspiracy, MCL
750.157a; MSA 28.354(1). We affirm.
Defendant was accused of owning a resale store which concealed stolen goods, having stolen
property in his home, and conspiring to conceal stolen property with his codefendant, who was accused
of managing the store. Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction on
either charge. Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal was denied, and the trial court
convicted him of both counts. Defendant was sentenced to two concurrent terms of one to five years’
imprisonment. This appeal followed.
Defendant first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for receiving
and concealing stolen property. We disagree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, there was sufficient evidence to allow a rational trier of fact to find that the property, which
was recovered from defendant’s home pursuant to a search warrant, was stolen. See People v
Hampton, 407 Mich 354, 368; 285 NW2d 284 (1979); People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 513-516;
489 NW2d 748 (1992), modified on other grounds 441 Mich 1201; 490 NW2d 408 (1992). There
was evidence that a television and a video cassette recorder were returned to their rightful owner and
that defendant had purchased the television on the street for $150 despite his suspicion that it was
stolen. It was possible to infer that these goods were stolen from the evidence that was presented and
-1
such a reasonable inference constituted satisfactory proof of defendant’s guilt. See People v Truong
(After Remand), 218 Mich App 325, 337; 553 NW2d 692 (1996).
Defendant also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for
conspiracy. We disagree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there
was sufficient evidence to allow a rational trier of fact to find that defendant acted in concert with his
codefendant to conspire to receive and conceal stolen goods. See Hampton, supra; Wolfe, supra.
Defendant’s admission that he knowingly rented space to a store which he believed to be operated
illegally suggests that defendant had, at a minimum, an implied agreement with his codefendant to permit
the shop to receive and conceal stolen property. Further, there was some evidence that defendant was
present at the shop during an illegal transaction and transported stolen property from the shop to his
garage. This evidence is consistent with the results of the search warrant executed at defendant’s home
which revealed the presence of stolen property. These circumstances constituted sufficient evidence
from which a rational trier of fact could infer an intent to combine with his codefendant to conspire to
receive and conceal stolen property. See People v Carter, 415 Mich 558, 567-568; 330 NW2d 314
(1982).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
