PEOPLE OF MI V JAMES RABON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 17, 2003
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 236009
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-008002-01
JAMES RABON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Meter and Schuette, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his conviction of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317,
entered after a bench trial. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant was charged with second-degree murder on an aiding and abetting theory in
the beating death of the eighty-year-old decedent. The evidence showed that defendant and
Parris Germany pushed, kicked, and struck decedent with their fists, and that defendant struck
decedent about the head and chest with various objects, including a speaker, an iron, and a glass
cup. The beating lasted for twenty to thirty minutes. The evidence showed that decedent died
from multiple blunt force trauma to the head and chest, and that the manner of death was
homicide. Defendant made a statement to police in which he admitted that he pushed, hit, and
kicked decedent. He maintained that the beating was still in progress when he left the scene, and
that decedent was alive at that time. Defendant contended that he beat decedent because he
thought that decedent was supplying a friend with money to buy crack cocaine.
The trial court acquitted defendant of possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony, MCL 750.227b, but convicted him of second-degree murder on an aiding and abetting
theory. The trial court relied heavily on defendant’s statement, and concluded that the beating of
decedent began before defendant arrived and continued after he left the residence. The trial court
indicated that it had grappled with the issue of whether defendant’s actions constituted seconddegree murder or a lesser offense such as assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than
murder, MCL 750.84, or felonious assault, MCL 750.82, and had concluded that based on the
severity of the beating and on defendant’s admission that he struck, kicked, and pushed decedent,
a conviction of second-degree murder on an aiding and abetting theory was appropriate. The
-1-
trial court sentenced defendant to fifteen to thirty-one years and three months in prison, with
credit for 297 days.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. People v Vaughn, 186 Mich App 376, 379; 465 NW2d 365 (1990). 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; Id. at 380.
In a bench trial, the court must make findings of fact and state separately its conclusions
of law. MCR 6.403. Findings are sufficient if it appears that the trial court was aware of the
issues in the case and correctly applied the law. People v Smith, 211 Mich App 233, 235; 535
NW2d 248 (1995). We review a trial court’s findings of fact for clear error. MCR 2.613(C);
People v Hermiz, 235 Mich App 248, 255; 597 NW2d 218 (1999), aff’d by equal division 462
Mich 71; 611 NW2d 783 (2000). A finding is considered to be clearly erroneous if, after a
review of the entire record, we are left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake was
made. People v Gistover, 189 Mich App 44, 46; 472 NW2d 27 (1991).
As noted in People v Werner, 254 Mich App 528, 531; 659 NW2d 688 (2002):
The elements of second-degree murder are (1) a death; (2) caused by an
act of the defendant; (3) with malice; and (4) without justification or excuse.
Malice is defined as the intent to kill, the intent to cause great bodily harm, or the
intent to do an act in wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the
natural tendency of such behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm.
[Citations omitted.]
To support a finding that a defendant aided and abetted a crime, the prosecutor must
show that: (1) the crime was committed by 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. People v Turner, 213 Mich App 558,
568; 540 NW2d 728 (1995), overruled in part on other grounds grounds People v. Mass, 464
Mich. 615, 627-628; 628 NW2d 540 (2001). Moreover,
[a]n aider and abettor’s state of mind may be inferred from all the facts and
circumstances. Factors that may be considered include a close association
between the defendant and the principal, the defendant’s participation in the
planning or execution of the crime, and evidence of flight after the crime.
[Turner, supra at 569 (citations omitted).]
1
During the same proceeding the trial court sentenced defendant to a concurrent term of two and
one-half to five years in prison for probation violation. In People v Rabon, unpublished opinion
per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 25, 2003 (Docket No. 236010), another
panel of this Court affirmed that sentence.
-2-
Defendant argues that insufficient evidence was produced to support his conviction, and
that a remand for further findings of fact regarding intent is necessary. We disagree and affirm
defendant’s conviction. Defendant admitted that he struck, kicked, and pushed the eighty-yearold decedent. The evidence showed that in addition to hitting decedent with his fists, defendant
struck him in the head and chest with a speaker, an iron, and a glass cup. Defendant and
Germany beat decedent for twenty to thirty minutes. The evidence that defendant participated in
the prolonged and brutal beating of the elderly decedent supported a finding that defendant acted
in wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the tendency of his behavior was to cause
death or great bodily harm. Werner, supra. Defendant was charged on an aiding and abetting
theory; therefore, the fact that decedent was alive when defendant left the residence is irrelevant.
The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to support
defendant’s conviction. Vaughn, supra.
We decline to remand for further findings of fact regarding defendant’s intent. The
nature of defendant’s actions was not in dispute. The trial court’s statement that it struggled with
the issue of whether defendant’s actions constituted second-degree murder or a lesser offense
such as assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder indicates that it was
considering what intent was demonstrated by defendant’s actions. The trial court understood the
issues in the case and correctly applied the law. Smith, supra. Its finding that defendant had the
requisite intent for second-degree murder was not clearly erroneous. Hermiz, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
