PEOPLE OF MI V CLEVELAND EVERHART
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 16, 2007
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 270874
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 06-001155-01
CLEVELAND EVERHART,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was charged with first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2), felonious
assault, MCL 750.82, malicious destruction of a building causing less than $200 in damage,
MCL 750.380(5), and malicious destruction of property causing more than $200 but less than
$1,000 in damage, MCL 750.377a(1)(c)(i). Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of
all four charges. At sentencing, the trial court vacated the malicious destruction of a building
and malicious destruction of property convictions, and sentenced defendant to 30 months to 20
years in prison for the first-degree home invasion conviction and two to four years in prison for
the felonious assault conviction. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm. This case is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant argues that the prosecution failed to present legally sufficient evidence to
show beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed a felonious assault and first-degree
home invasion. We disagree. The Court reviews de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence. People v Martin, 271 Mich App 280, 340; 721 NW2d 815 (2006); People v Hawkins,
245 Mich App 439, 457; 628 NW2d 105 (2001). When the sufficiency of the evidence is
challenged, the Court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to
determine whether any trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Robinson, 475 Mich 1, 5; 715 NW2d 44 (2006).
Defendant argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the elements of
felonious assault. “The elements of felonious assault are (1) an assault, (2) with a dangerous
weapon, and (3) with the intent to injure or place the victim in reasonable apprehension of an
immediate battery.” People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499, 505; 597 NW2d 864 (1999). An
assault is “either an attempt to commit a battery or an unlawful act which places another in
reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery.” People v Sanford, 402 Mich 460,
479; 265 NW2d 1 (1978) (internal quotation omitted). Overt, threatening conduct designed to
-1-
put another in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery is sufficient to establish an
assault. People v Reeves, 458 Mich 236, 240-244; 580 NW2d 433 (1998).
Defendant forcefully and unlawfully entered the victim’s, armed himself with a steak
knife, and then approached the victim and followed her as she ran out of her house. This
sequence of acts qualifies as overt, threatening conduct. “Merely displaying a knife implies a
threat of violence[.]” People v Pace, 102 Mich App 522, 534; 302 NW2d 216 (1980).
Defendant argues intent is the main issue in this case. Defendant acknowledges that a
reviewing court must draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility determinations in
support of the verdict, but submits there is no evidence defendant specifically intended that the
victim apprehend an immediate battery. People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78
(2000). Defendant argues the trial court improperly inferred defendant’s intent from the victim’s
reactions, rather than from defendant’s conduct. This Court first observes that “specific intent is
not an element of felonious assault. The prosecution need only show the general criminal intent
to commit an unlawful act necessary for simple assault.” People v Johnson, 407 Mich 196, 227;
284 NW2d 718 (1979). Intent may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances. People v
Hardrick, 258 Mich App 238, 246; 671 NW2d 548 (2003). Because it is difficult to prove an
actor’s state of mind, minimal circumstantial evidence is sufficient. People v McGhee, 268 Mich
App 600, 623; 709 NW2d 595 (2005). Here, defendant broke into the victim’s house, armed
himself with a knife, and then approached and followed the victim. A trier of fact could
conclude that defendant’s threatening conduct was designed to place the victim in apprehension
of an immediate battery, notwithstanding his utterances to the contrary.
The last assault element under Reeves requires that defendant’s overt conduct caused the
victim to reasonably apprehend an immediate battery. Although the victim admits defendant
never verbally threatened her, she said she fled the house at the sight of defendant holding a
knife. The evidence sufficiently supported a finding that the victim apprehended an immediate
battery, and her apprehension was reasonable, given the circumstances.
The prosecution established the remaining elements of felonious assault. MCL 750.82(1)
includes knives in its list of dangerous weapons. The testimony is uncontested that defendant,
after entering the home, armed himself with a steak knife, satisfying the second element of
felonious assault. Regarding the third element, intent, felonious assault is merely “a simple
assault aggravated by the use of a weapon.” People v Jones, 443 Mich 88, 100; 504 NW2d 158
(1993). The prosecution need only show the general criminal intent to commit an unlawful act.
Johnson, supra at 227. The circumstantial evidence in the instant case is sufficient to satisfy the
intent element for assault, so it is sufficient to sustain the intent element for felonious assault as
well. Hardrick, supra at 246; McGhee, supra at 623. Thus, this Court finds that the evidence
adduced is sufficient to support defendant’s felonious assault conviction.
Defendant also argues there was insufficient evidence presented to prove the elements of
first-degree home invasion. First-degree home invasion is defined as follows:
[A] person who enters a dwelling without permission with intent to commit a
felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, or a person who . . . enters a dwelling
without permission and, at any time while he or she is entering, present in, or
exiting the dwelling, commits a felony, larceny, or assault is guilty of home
-2-
invasion in the first degree if at any time while the person is entering, present in,
or exiting the dwelling either of the following circumstances exists:
(a) The person is armed with a dangerous weapon.
(b) Another person is lawfully present in the dwelling.
[MCL 750.110a(2); People v Sands, 261 Mich App 158, 162; 680 NW2d 500
(2004).]
Defendant, in his appellate brief, acknowledges the prosecution established that he entered the
victim’s dwelling without permission. Defendant contends, however, that there is insufficient
evidence to show he intended to commit an assault when he entered the home. Even assuming
this to be correct, defendant overlooks that first-degree home invasion may be established by
showing that defendant committed an assault while present in or exiting the dwelling, if at any
time when he was in or exiting the home, he was armed with a dangerous weapon or another
person was lawfully present in the home. For the reasons stated above, the evidence was
sufficient to support a conviction of felonious assault, which defendant committed while he was
present in and exiting the victim’s dwelling. Defendant armed himself with a knife, a dangerous
weapon, while in the home. The victim was lawfully present in her home during these events.
Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support the first-degree home invasion conviction.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-3-
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.
