PEOPLE OF MI V ELAINE PEEK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 14, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 215401
Wayne Circuit Court
Criminal Division
LC No. 98-002174
ELAINE PEEK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Murphy and Collins, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of larceny over $100, MCL 750.356;
MSA 28.588, and false report of a felony MCL 750.411a(1)(b); MSA 28.643(1)(b). She was
sentenced to two years’ probation and ordered to pay $1,570 in restitution. Defendant appeals as
of right. We reverse.
Defendant argues first on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support her
conviction for larceny. We agree. We review a claim of insufficient evidence de novo, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to 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); People v
Simpson, 207 Mich App 560, 562; 526 NW2d 33 (1994). Circumstantial evidence and
reasonable inferences arising from the evidence may constitute satisfactory proof of the elements
of the offense. People v Greenwood, 209 Mich App 470, 472; 531 NW2d 771 (1995).
In order to support a conviction for larceny, the prosecution must produce sufficient
evidence to prove each of the following elements:
(1) an actual or constructive taking of goods or property, (2) a carrying away or
asportation, (3) the carrying away must be with a felonious intent, (4) the subject
matter must be the goods or personal property of another, (5) the taking must be
without the consent and against the will of the owner. [People v Cain, 238 Mich
App 95, 120; 605 NW2d 28 (1999), quoting People v Anderson, 7 Mich App 513,
516; 152 NW2d 40 (1967).]
-1-
Also, a defendant may be charged as a principal but convicted as an aider and abettor. People v
Turner, 213 Mich App 558, 568; 540 NW2d 728 (1995). The elements of aiding and abetting
are:
(1) the crime charged was committed by the defendant or some other person, (2)
the defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the
commission of the crime, and (3) the defendant intended the commission of the
crime or had knowledge that the principal intended its commission at the time he
gave aid and encouragement. [Id. Emphasis added.]
“‘Aiding and abetting’ encompasses all forms of assistance to the principal and all words and
deeds that might support, encourage, or incite the commission of a crime.” Id. The amount of
assistance is immaterial. People v Usher, 121 Mich App 345, 350; 328 NW2d 628 (1982). “One
aids or abets when he takes conscious action to make the criminal venture succeed.” Id. at 350351. However, “[m]ere presence, even with knowledge that an offense is about to be committed
or is being committed, is insufficient to establish that a defendant aided or assisted in the
commission of the crime.” People v Norris, 236 Mich App 411, 419-420; 600 NW2d 658
(1999).
In this case, the circumstantial and eyewitness evidence did not support an inference that
defendant participated in the alleged larceny. No physical evidence linked defendant to the
crime. Although an eyewitness placed defendant at the scene, her testimony revealed that
defendant was merely present at the time of the larceny. The eyewitness, a neighbor, testified
that she saw defendant “standing . . . at the front of the house at the gate” when she looked out of
her bedroom window. Although she saw people carrying objects that she could not identify from
the front of the yard toward the back alley, the neighbor testified that defendant did not have
anything in her hands; defendant did not give anything to anyone or receive anything from
anyone. When asked if defendant was interacting with the other people in the yard, the witness
stated “[defendant] was just standing there by the fence.”
Although reasonable inferences may prove the elements of a crime, Greenwood, supra at
472, those inferences must arise from the evidence. Here, the evidence simply does not support
an inference that defendant acted as a principal or as an aider and abettor. None of the evidence
suggested that defendant actually or constructively took personal property and carried it away,
and the eyewitness did not describe any conduct that could be construed as being helpful or
encouraging to others moving the objects through the yard. Rather, the evidence shows that, at
most, defendant was merely present when the larceny occurred. Accordingly, defendant’s
larceny conviction is reversed.
Defendant argues next that there was insufficient proof to support her conviction for
making a false report of a felony. We agree. Falsity of the report is an element of the crime. See
MCL 750.411a; MSA 28.691; People v Lay, 336 Mich 77, 82; 57 NW2d 453 (1953). Here, no
evidence suggests that defendant’s report was false in any respect. To the contrary, there was
clear evidence that a felony had occurred and that the items that defendant reported as stolen had,
in fact, been stolen. Therefore, defendant’s conviction for making a false felony report also is
reversed.
-2-
In light of our resolution of the preceding issues, we need not resolve defendant’s
remaining claim on appeal.
Reversed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
-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.
