IN RE ARTHUR FOREMAN

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of ARTHUR FOREMAN, Minor. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED December 18, 2003 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 242863 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 01-401849 ARTHUR FOREMAN, Respondent-Appellant. Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Neff and White, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent appeals as of right from an order of disposition entered following delinquency proceedings in which the trial court determined that he committed second-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(3). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). The sufficiency of the evidence in a bench trial is reviewed de novo on appeal and we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that each element of the crime was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Sherman-Huffman, 241 Mich App 264, 265; 615 NW2d 776 (2000). Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom may be sufficient to prove the elements of the crime. People v Gould, 225 Mich App 79, 86; 570 NW2d 140 (1997). The trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. A finding of fact is considered “clearly erroneous if, after review of the entire record, the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” People v Gistover, 189 Mich App 44, 46; 472 NW2d 27 (1991). The elements of second-degree home invasion are (1) that the defendant (a) broke and entered a dwelling or (b) entered a dwelling without permission, and (2) that when the defendant broke and entered the dwelling or entered the dwelling without permission, he intended to commit a felony, larceny, or assault therein. MCL 750.110a(3). The prosecutor need not show that the larceny was successful; all that is required is that the defendant intended to commit the larceny at the time he entered the dwelling. People v Adams, 202 Mich App 385, 390; 509 NW2d 530 (1993). The defendant’s intent may be proved from circumstantial evidence alone as -1- well as from facts and circumstances established beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Strong, 143 Mich App 442, 452; 372 NW2d 335 (1985). The evidence showed that the victim’s house had recently been broken into and several items were missing. Respondent was found hiding near the back gate and a bag of the homeowner’s videotapes was found on the ground near the house. Respondent, the only other person in the area, at first gave a story about looking for his keys and then admitted that he had been inside the house. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. Affirmed. /s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald /s/ Janet T. Neff /s/ Helene N. White -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.