PEOPLE OF MI V DONALD DELAROSA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 3, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 246018
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-002130
DONALD DELAROSA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Wilder and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial convictions for assault with intent to commit
great bodily harm, MCL 750.84, two counts of felonious assault, MCL 750.82, first-degree home
invasion, MCL 750.110a(2), carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227, two counts of felon in
possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. We affirm.
On appeal, defendant argues that the court issued inconsistent verdicts on the assault
charges. Defendant was charged with three counts of assault with intent to murder. He asserts
that the verdicts were inconsistent because the same facts applied to all three victims.
“[T]rial courts in bench trials are both required to render logical verdicts and precluded
from exercising a jury’s capacity for lenity.” People v Hutchinson, 224 Mich App 603; 569
NW2d 858 (1997). Judges sitting as finders of fact may not reach inconsistent verdicts. See
People v Vaughn, 409 Mich 463, 466; 295 NW2d 354 (1980). The factual findings underlying
the verdicts must be inconsistent to mandate reversal. See People v Smith, 231 Mich App 50;
585 NW2d 755 (1998).
There was no factual inconsistency among the verdicts. One victim was actually hit by
the bullets that defendant fired, while the other two people were not. The trial court could
reasonably find that defendant had the intent to cause great bodily harm to the victim he hit, but
that he did not display the same intent when he did not fire directly at the other two.
We decline to address the issue defendant attempts to raise in an untimely supplemental
brief.
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
