PEOPLE OF MI V CHRISTOPHER LEWIS MAITRE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
January 15, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 243099
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 01-179471-FH
CHRISTOPHER LEWIS MAITRE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Sawyer and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Christopher Lewis Maitre, appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of
intentionally discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle in a manner so as to endanger the safety
of another, MCL 750.234a(1), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony,
MCL 750.227b. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of one month to four years’
imprisonment for intentionally discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, but suspended the
sentence, and two years’ imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction. We affirm.
Defendant first asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of
intentionally discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle in a manner so as to endanger another.
In particular, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial that he
discharged the weapon in such a manner as to endanger the safety of another. We disagree. This
Court reviews sufficiency of the evidence de novo. People v Lueth, 253 Mich App 670, 680; 660
NW2d 322 (2002). In determining whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to sustain a
criminal conviction, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution
and determines whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime
were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Johnson, 460 Mich 720, 723; 597 NW2d 73
(1999).
A verdict can be based on circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn
from that evidence. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). The jury
determines “what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and . . . the weight to be
accorded those inferences.” People v Hardiman, 466 Mich 417, 428; 646 NW2d 158 (2002).
This Court should not interfere with the jury’s role in this process or the jury’s determination of
witness credibility. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 514-515; 489 NW2d 748, amended 441
Mich 1201 (1992).
-1-
The elements of the offense of intentionally discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle
so as to endanger the safety of another requires that the prosecution prove that defendant (1)
discharged a firearm, (2) intentionally, (3) from a motor vehicle, and that (4) he did so in a way
that endangered someone else. See CJI2d 11.37.
On appeal, defendant does not dispute that he intentionally fired a shotgun from his
motor vehicle near an ongoing party and residential neighborhood. While no testimony indicates
that defendant actually aimed the shotgun at any individual, testimony from the host of the party,
Ryan Tyler, two guests, David LaLone and Christopher Skarsten, and even defendant’s
passenger, Nathan Acord, supports the conclusion that between fifteen and twenty-five people
were in the front yard when defendant fired his shotgun into the air and that the house where the
party was taking place is near another residential area. Defendant and Acord testified that the
gun was pointed away from the house; however, defendant admitted that he initially lied to
police about the gun accidentally going off in a struggle, and Acord admitted that his testimony
at trial was not consistent with his written statement and agreed that his memory was affected
because of the large amount of alcohol he consumed that evening. Because of defendant’s and
Acord’s admissions, the jury could decide that defendant’s and Acord’s testimony concerning
the direction of the shot was incredible. Based on this testimony, sufficient evidence was
presented for the jury to find that the gun was discharged in the vicinity of an ongoing party and
near a residential area and for the jury to reasonably infer that the slug defendant shot up into the
air also fell back down somewhere in that same area, endangering all those within range of the
shotgun.
Defendant also contends that because the prosecution failed to prove the underlying
felony, there was insufficient evidence that he possessed a firearm during commission of a
felony. As discussed above, there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the underlying
felony of intentionally discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle in such a manner as to
endanger others. Because defendant possessed a firearm (the shotgun) during the commission of
this felony, sufficient evidence was presented to the jury to support its decision to convict
defendant of felony-firearm.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/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.
