PEOPLE OF MI V ZACHARIA GENTRY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 5, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 207818
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 96-006798
ZACHARIA GENTRY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Zahra and Pavlich*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his convictions of one count of first-degree home invasion,
MCL 750.110a; MSA 28.305(a); two counts of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797; two
counts of felonious assault, MCL 750.82; MSA 28.277; and one count of possession of a firearm
during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2), entered after a bench trial. We
affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant was charged in connection with an incident in which two armed intruders entered the
home of complainant Jessica Love, restrained and pointed guns at Love and her stepson, and stole
various items, including televisions, cash, and a vehicle. The following day, defendant was arrested
while driving the vehicle stolen from Love. Love selected defendant out of a lineup and identified him as
one of the perpetrators. She indicated that defendant had worn a bandana over his mouth; however, his
face from the top of his forehead to the bottom of his nose had been visible. Subsequently, Love saw
various items taken from her home in a pawn shop. The items were tagged with the name of
defendant’s mother. Defendant’s brother testified that defendant was at home at the time the incident
occurred. Defendant’s mother testified that she purchased various items from a narcotics user and later
pawned them. Defendant testified that he was at home at the time of the incident and that he purchased
the items later pawned by his mother. The trial court found defendant guilty as charged, concluding that
Love’s identification testimony was credible, and that the testimony given by defendant and his
witnesses was contradictory and not credible.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a bench trial, we view the
evidence presented in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of
fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The
trier of fact may make reasonable inferences from evidence in the record but may not make inferences
completely unsupported by any direct or circumstantial evidence. People v Petrella, 424 Mich 221,
268-270, 275; 380 NW2d 11 (1985); People v Vaughn, 186 Mich App 376, 379-380; 465 NW2d
365 (1990).
On appeal, defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as a
perpetrator of the offenses. He asserts that Love’s identification was insufficient given that the
perpetrator’s face was partially obscured. We disagree and affirm. Assessment of the credibility of
witnesses is a matter for the trier of fact. We will not resolve the issue anew. Vaughn, supra at 380.
If testimony is conflicting, it is for the trier of fact to decide what weight to give to the testimony given by
each witness. People v Marji, 180 Mich App 525, 542; 447 NW2d 835 (1989). Here, Love made a
positive identification of defendant as the perpetrator who wore a bandana. She indicated that while the
bandana covered defendant’s mouth, the remainder of his face was visible. Defendant presented an
alibi witness, his brother, who testified that defendant was at home at the time of the incident. The
testimony given by an alibi witness is to be assigned weight relative to its content. Such testimony is not
always sufficient to create reasonable doubt if other substantial evidence is presented. People v Amos,
10 Mich App 533, 536; 159 NW2d 855 (1968). In this case, the trial court found Love’s identification
testimony to be credible and concluded that defendant and the witnesses who testified on his behalf
were not credible. Viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, complainant’s testimony
constituted sufficient evidence of identification. Vaughn, supra; Marji, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Scott L. Pavlich
-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.