PEOPLE OF MI V AUBREY J STANLEYAnnotate this Case
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
May 26, 1998
Detroit Recorder’s Court
LC No. 96-001299
AUBREY J. STANLEY,
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and Cavanagh, JJ.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than
murder, MCL 750.84; MSA 28.279, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony,
MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). He was sentenced to eighty to 120 months in prison for the assault
conviction, to be served consecutive to a mandatory two-year sentence for the felony-firearm
conviction. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
The complainant testified that on October 25, 1995, he was standing on the front porch of his
home when defendant shot him in the leg. Defendant contends that the evidence presented was
insufficient to support his convictions because the prosecutor failed to establish beyond a reasonable
doubt that defendant was the individual who committed these crimes. We disagree.
When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this Court must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecutor and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the
essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich
508, 515; 489 NW2d 748, amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). As an essential part of his case, the
prosecutor must identify the accused as the person who committed the alleged offense. People v Kern,
6 Mich App 406, 409; 149 NW2d 216 (1967). The prosecutor may prove identity by either direct or
circumstantial evidence. Id.
Although defendant was not identified at trial by his street name, the complainant and his two
sisters identified defendant as the person who shot the complainant. The three of them testified that they
recognized defendant as “a Stanley,” “the older brother,” or “the oldest Stanley boy” and identified him
as such when questioned by police immediately after the shooting. Defendant does not contest his
identity as “the oldest Stanley boy.” This testimony occurred in a context in which it was clear that the
witnesses were referring to defendant and is sufficient to identify defendant as the person who shot the
As to defendant’s argument that he had no motive to commit this crime, motive is not an element
that must be proven by the prosecution in this case.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh