IN RE MICHAEL EDWIN SMITH MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re MICHAEL EDWIN SMITH, Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 15, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252760
Van Buren Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-013458
MICHAEL EDWIN SMITH,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and O’Connell and Donofrio, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent was convicted, after a bench trial, of malicious destruction of property – less
than $200, MCL 712A.2, and throwing objects at trains/cars, MCL 750.394. He appeals and we
affirm.
Respondent was stopped at the scene where damaged occurred to the victim’s motor
vehicle. Respondent’s sole argument on appeal is that the only evidence linking him to the
charged crimes was the testimony of prosecution witnesses Ryan and Lester Willis in which the
witnesses claimed respondent had admitted to them that he had thrown a quarter off of the
Hartford highway overpass on the night in question and that it had hit a car and bounced off, that
these witnesses lacked credibility, and that therefore the trial court relied on insufficient evidence
in finding respondent guilty of the charged crimes.
With regard to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must view the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of
fact could have found all of the elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307, 319; 99 S Ct 2781; 61 L Ed 2d 560 (1979); People v Wolfe, 440
Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), mod 441 Mich 1201 (1992). This standard is equally
applicable where defendant is convicted after a bench trial. People v Legg, 197 Mich App 131,
132; 494 NW2d 797 (1992), lv den 442 Mich 916 (1993). Circumstantial evidence and
reasonable inferences therefrom may constitute sufficient evidence to find all the elements of an
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78
(2000). All conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the prosecution. People v
Terry, 224 Mich App 447, 452; 569 NW2d 641 (1997), lv den 458 Mich 870 (1998).
-1-
Specifically, when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the basis
of credibility, this Court will not interfere with the factfinder’s role in determining the weight of
evidence or the credibility of witnesses, whether the fact finder is a jury, People v Wolfe, 440
Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), modified 441 Mich 916 (1993), or the trial court, People
v Petrella, 424 Mich 221, 269-270; 380 NW2d 11 (1985); People v Jackson, 178 Mich App 62,
64-65; 443 NW2d 423 (1989). Accordingly, respondent’s claim is without merit and, therefore,
respondent is not entitled to reversal or remand.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-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.
