IN RE JAMES CLIFTON LEE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of James Clifton Lee, Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 17, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 246266
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 02-000734-DL
JAMES CLIFTON LEE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Zahra and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right his bench trial juvenile conviction for unarmed robbery,
MCL 750.530. We affirm.
On appeal, defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. In determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a
conviction, a reviewing court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, and determine whether any rational finder of fact could have found that the essential
elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508,
515; 489 NW2d 748, amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). The standard of review is deferential: a
reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in
support of the verdict. People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000).
The elements of unarmed robbery are (1) a felonious taking of property from another, (2)
by force, violence, assault, or putting in fear, and (3) being unarmed. People v Johnson, 206
Mich App 122, 125-126; 520 NW2d 672 (1994). To support a finding of aiding and abetting, the
prosecution must show that the defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted in
the commission of the crime, and defendant intended the commission of the crime or had
knowledge that the principal intended its commission at the time that he gave aid and
encouragement. People v Turner, 213 Mich App 558, 565-566; 540 NW2d 728 (1995) overruled
in part on other grounds People v Mass, 464 Mich 615, 628; 628 NW2nd 540 (2001). An aider
and abettor must have the same intent as that required of the principal. People v Barrera, 451
Mich 261, 294; 547 NW2d 280 (1996).
-1-
There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Complainant testified that he
gave the items up because he was afraid of getting into an unfair fight. His testimony showed
that defendant acted in concert with the two others, and had the specific intent to deprive
complainant of his property.
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
