PEOPLE OF MI V ANTHONY TERRENCE SMITH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 8, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 245095
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-003307
ANTHONY TERRENCE SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Wilder and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by right his convictions of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, felon in
possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony, MCL 750.227b, entered after a bench trial. We affirm.
A new trial may be granted on some or all of the issues if a verdict is against the great
weight of the evidence. MCR 2.611(A)(1)(e). Determining whether a verdict is against the great
weight of the evidence requires a review of the entire body of proofs. The test is whether the
evidence preponderates so heavily against the verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to
allow the verdict to stand. People v Gadomski, 232 Mich App 24, 28; 592 NW2d 75 (1998). If
the evidence conflicts, the issue of credibility ordinarily should be left for the trier of fact.
People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 642-643; 576 NW2d 129 (1998). In a case tried without a
jury, a motion for new trial is not required to preserve the issue. MCR 7.211(C)(1)(c).
The only issue in dispute at trial was the identity of the perpetrator of the armed robbery
of a gas station. Complainant testified unequivocally that defendant, whom he knew as a former
employee, perpetrated the robbery. Two defense witnesses, who were friends of defendant’s,
stated that defendant was working at another location at the time the robbery occurred. The trial
court was entitled to find that complainant’s testimony was more credible than that given by
defendant’s witnesses. Lemmon, supra; People v Marji, 180 Mich App 525, 542; 447 NW2d
835 (1989). The evidence did not preponderate so heavily against the verdict that it would be a
-1-
miscarriage of justice to allow the verdict to stand. Gadomski, supra. Defendant is not entitled
to a new trial.
We affirm.
/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.
