PEOPLE OF MI V ANTHONY GOODWATER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 4, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 217296
Saginaw Circuit Court
LC No. 98-015236-FH
ANTHONY GOODWATER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Gribbs and Sawyer, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit breaking and entering
of a motor vehicle with damage, MCL 750.157(a); MSA 28.354(1); MCL 750.356a; MSA
28.588(1), possession of burglar tools, MCL 750.116; MSA 28.311, twelve counts of breaking and
entering of a vehicle causing damage, MCL 750.356a; MSA 28.588(1), malicious destruction of
property over $100, MCL 750.377a; MSA 28.609(1), and malicious destruction of property less than
$100, MCL 750.377a; MSA 28.609(1). The trial court sentenced defendant to five years’ probation,
with the first year to be spent in jail. Defendant appeals by right. We affirm.
On appeal, defendant raises three separate arguments challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could conclude that
the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440
Mich 508, 513-514; 489 NW2d 748, amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992).
Defendant first argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he aided and abetted
the breaking and entering of a motor vehicle causing damage. We disagree. The evidence showed that
defendant personally broke into and damaged some of the vehicles, and that he acted as a lookout while
his companion, Eric Spillers, broke into and damaged other vehicles. There was evidence that
defendant helped Spillers put the stolen items in Spillers’ car, helped unload the stolen items, and
discussed with Spillers the possibility of selling the items. From this evidence, the jury could infer that
defendant was assisting the commission of the crime of breaking and entering of a motor vehicle he
knew that Spillers intended to commit. People v Nichols, 69 Mich App 357, 359; 244 NW2d 335
-1
(1976). The state of mind of an aider and abettor may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances.
People v Turner, 213 Mich App 558, 567; 540 NW2d 728 (1995). Viewed in light most favorable
to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction. Wolfe, supra.
Defendant next challenges the prosecutor’s proofs regarding aiding and abetting the malicious
destruction of personalty offenses. There is no merit to this claim. The evidence in this case showed
that both defendant and Spillers used a screwdriver to break vehicles’ windows so that they could steal
objects from inside the vehicles. Although defendant did not personally break all the vehicles’ windows,
he also served as a lookout while Spillers broke them. It is reasonable to infer that defendant assisted
the commission of the crime of malicious destruction of personalty and that he knew that Spillers
intended to commit that crime. Nichols, supra at 359; People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 761; 597
NW2d 130 (1999). Upon review of the complete record, and viewed in light most favorable to the
prosecution, we find the evidence sufficient to support defendant’s convictions for malicious destruction
of personalty.
Defendant next argues that the prosecution produced insufficient evidence to convict him of
possession of burglar tools. Again, we disagree. The crime of possession of burglar tools requires
proof that the instruments involved were tools “adapted and designed” for breaking and entering, that
the defendant possessed the tools knowing that they are adapted and designed for the purpose of
breaking and entering, and that the defendant possessed the tools intending to use them to commit a
breaking and entering. MCL 750.116; MSA 28.311; People v Dorrington, 221 Mich 571, 574; 191
NW 831 (1923). In the instant case, defendant argues that the screwdriver he possessed while
committing the breakings does not constitute a burglar tool because it is not designed or manufactured
to break into vehicles. The term “adapted and designed” means “contrived or taken to be employed”
for the purpose of breaking and entering. Dorrington, supra at 574. Although a screwdriver may
have a purpose outside assisting in burglaries, a screwdriver may be “adapted and designed” for the
purpose of breaking and entering. People v Murphy, 28 Mich App 150, 159-160; 184 NW2d 256
(1970). In the present case, the evidence showed that defendant did in fact “employ” the screwdriver
repeatedly to break and enter vehicles and to pry objects out of the vehicles. Thus, taken as a whole
and viewed in light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s
conviction for possession of burglar tools. Murphy, supra at 159-160.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ David H. Sawyer
-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.
