PEOPLE OF MI V SHARONE WALKER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 23, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 193582
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 95-002578 FC
SHARONE WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and MacKenzie and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of felony murder, MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548,
and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. He appeals as of right. We affirm.
This case involves the shooting death of cab driver Dan Jennings during the early morning hours
of August 28, 1995. Trial testimony established that defendant and his friend Marquel Smith spent the
evening of August 27 and early morning of August 28, 1995 with a number of acquaintances. Several
witnesses, including Shanetta Orange and Karla Parker, testified that Smith pulled out a gun at various
times that night and shot into the air on one occasion. At Orange’s apartment, Smith suggested that he
and defendant rob a cab and defendant responded “yeah.” Parker eventually called a cab for
defendant and Smith. According to Parker, when defendant and Smith learned that they would have to
wait their turn for the cab, defendant said “something about that’s more money for him,” and Smith said
that “they was about to get paid.” Another witness also testified that Smith said he was going to “go
jacking,” or stealing.
At approximately 2 a.m., a cab driven by Brian Meeter picked up defendant and Smith. Before
the cab arrived, Smith asked defendant if he was “ready to do it,” and defendant responded in the
affirmative. After entering the cab, defendant put on a pair of dark glasses and Smith pulled the brim on
his cap down over his face. Smith asked Meeter to drive to a number of non-existent addresses and
asked him how much money he had. Meeter eventually ordered the two men out of the cab and
radioed for assistance. Defendant said “you ain’t kicking me out,” but the two men left after Smith said
“come on, the cops are on the way.”
-1
Defendant and Smith then walked to a friend’s apartment, where defendant called for another
cab. Jennings responded to the call. At the end of the ride Smith pulled out his gun. He fired two or
three times and struck Jennings in the head and back, passing through his spinal cord, aorta, pulmonary
artery, and left lung.
On appeal, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his felony murder
conviction. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views the evidence
in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if a rational trier of fact could find the elements
of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489
NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). The elements of felony-murder are: (1) the
killing of a human being, (2) with malice – the intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, or to create a very
high risk of death or great bodily harm with knowledge that death or great bodily harm was the
probable result, (3) while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of any of the
felonies specifically enumerated in MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548. People v Turner, 213 Mich App
558, 566; 540 NW2d 728 (1995). See also People v Dumas, 454 Mich 390, 397; 563 NW2d 31
(1997) (In a felony-murder case, “the people must prove one of the three intents that define malice in
every murder case.”). In People v Kelly, 423 Mich 261, 278-279; 378 NW2d 365 (1985), citing
People v Aaron, 409 Mich 262, 728-729; 299 NW2d 304 (1980), our Supreme Court stated that,
when, as here, a defendant in a felony-murder case is tried on an aiding and abetting theory, it must be
shown that
. . .the aider and abettor had the intent to kill, the intent to cause great bodily harm or
wantonly and willfully disregarded the likelihood of the natural tendency of his behavior
to cause death or great bodily harm. Aaron, 409 Mich 733. Further, if the aider and
abettor participates in a crime with knowledge of his principal’s intent to kill or to
cause great bodily harm, he is acting with “wanton and willful disregard”
sufficient to support a finding of malice under Aaron. [Emphasis added.]
See also, Turner, supra, p 567, and People v Flowers, 191 Mich App 169, 178; 477 NW2d 473
(1991).
In this case, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the jury could
conclude that defendant participated in the attempted armed robbery of Jennings with knowledge of
Smith’s intent to kill or cause great bodily harm. Defendant knew that Smith had a gun when the two
men set out to rob a cab driver; in fact, defendant was with Smith when Smith fired the gun into the air
earlier that night. Smith’s intent to kill or do great bodily harm could be inferred from the use of the
deadly weapon during the robbery. Turner, supra, p 567, citing People v Martin, 392 Mich 553,
561; 221 NW2d 336 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds in People v Woods, 416 Mich 581;
331 NW2d 707 (1982). As explained in Turner, supra:
Turner’s knowledge that Johnson [Turner’s principal] was armed during the
commission of the armed robbery is enough for a rational trier of fact to find that Turner,
as an aider and abettor, participated in the crime with knowledge of Johnson’s intent to
cause great bodily harm. See Martin, 392 Mich 553. Because Turner knew of
-2
Johnson’s intent to at least cause great bodily harm, a rational trier of fact could find that
Turner was acting with “wanton and willful disregard” sufficient to support a finding of
malice under Aaron. [213 Mich 572-573].
The same reasoning applies here. Under Turner, defendant’s knowledge that Smith was armed
when the pair entered Jennings’ cab was sufficient for the jury to conclude that, as an aider and abettor,
defendant was also aware of Smith’s intent to at least cause great bodily harm. “[I]f the aider and
abettor participates in a crime with knowledge of his principal’s intent to. . .cause great bodily harm, he
is acting with ‘wanton and willful disregard’ sufficient to support a finding of malice under Aaron.”
Kelly, supra, pp 278-279. Defendant strenuously argues that Turner was wrongly decided. It is,
however, binding on this panel under MCR 7.215(H) and we decline the invitation to revisit its analysis
and holding. Consistent with Turner, the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution,
was sufficient to establish the element of malice necessary to support defendant’s felony-murder
conviction.
Defendant also briefly argues that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that he was
aiding and abetting Smith in committing an armed robbery when Jennings was shot and killed. The claim
is without merit. There was ample evidence that the two set out to rob a cab driver. Smith was armed
with a loaded gun, and both men had items to hide their faces. After missing the opportunity to rob
Meeter, defendant summoned a second cab. The two men entered Jennings’ cab with no money.
Under these circumstances, the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant was not merely looking
for a ride home, but intended to participate in the armed robbery of Jennings.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
