PEOPLE OF MI V VALDEZ DURAN ADAMS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 21, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 206343
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 96-005111
VALDEZ DURAN ADAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Saad and Gage, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of entering a home without permission, MCL
750.115; MSA 28.310, and aiding and abetting the malicious destruction of personal property over
$100, MCL 750.377a; MSA 28.609(1), MCL 767.39; MSA 28.979. The trial court sentenced
defendant to three years’ probation. Defendant appeals as of right, and we affirm.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding that he had the requisite intent to commit
malicious destruction of personal property, and that the shotgun shells found near the complainant’s
vehicle were spent from the shotgun that defendant allegedly possessed. This Court reviews for clear
error a trial court’s findings of fact. MCR 2.613(C). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, after a
review of the entire record, an appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been made. People v Swirles (After Remand), 218 Mich App 133, 136; 553 NW2d 357
(1996).
The testimony of complainant Michael Moses established that defendant appeared at his door
around 2:00 a.m., that defendant was with another man who carried a shotgun, that defendant and the
other man attempted to push open the door to Moses’ home, that Moses subsequently heard shots and
then saw defendant, while standing in Moses’ neighbor’s yard, fire the shotgun at Moses’ vehicle. The
testimony of the police officers who arrived at the scene shortly after the crime occurred further
substantiated Moses’ testimony. These facts adequately support the trial court’s finding that defendant
at least participated in and encouraged the discharge of a shotgun at Moses’ vehicle, and that at the time
of his participation and encouragement defendant possessed the specific intent necessary for conviction
of malicious destruction of personal property over $100. People v Nelson, 234 Mich App 454, 459;
-1
594 NW2d 114 (1999) (Malicious destruction of personal property requires a showing of the
defendant’s specific intent to damage or destroy property, which intent may be inferred from all the facts
and circumstances); People v King, 210 Mich App 425, 429; 534 NW2d 534 (1995) (The aider and
abettor must either himself possess the requisite specific intent for the underlying crime or know that the
principal possesses the requisite intent.).
Despite defendant’s testimony denying involvement in the shooting of Moses’ vehicle, our
review of the available evidence does not leave us with the definite and firm conviction that the trial court
erred with respect to its findings, or consequently its verdict. Swirles, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
