PEOPLE OF MI V RONALD LEE LEWIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 26, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 283091
Berrien Circuit Court
LC No. 2007-402882-FC
RONALD LEE LEWIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Beckering, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Ronald Lee Lewis, appeals as of right his jury trial convictions for two counts
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. Because the issue of
defendant’s identification was properly submitted to the jury, we affirm.
In defendant’s single claim of error on appeal, he argues that his conviction was not
supported by sufficient evidence. We review the evidence de novo, viewing it in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, in order to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find
that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe,
440 Mich 508, 513-514; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). In addition, it
is the jury’s function alone, when considering the evidence, to determine what weight and
credibility to give the evidence. Id. at 514-515, quoting People v Palmer, 392 Mich 370, 375376; 220 NW2d 393 (1974). This Court must resolve any conflicts in the evidence in favor of
the prosecution. People v Fletcher, 260 Mich App 531, 561-562; 679 NW2d 127 (2004). This
Court is also “required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support
of the jury verdict” when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence. People v Nowack, 462 Mich
392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000).
Defendant’s sole contention with respect to his convictions is that there was insufficient
evidence of his identification as the perpetrator of the crimes. Identity is an essential element of
any crime. People v Kern, 6 Mich App 406, 409-410; 149 NW2d 216 (1967). “The credibility
of identification testimony is a matter left solely to the jury who, after listening to all the
testimony and viewing the demeanor of the witnesses, chose to disbelieve defendant.” People v
Watson, 52 Mich App 211, 214; 217 NW2d 121 (1974), remanded on other grounds 396 Mich
870 (1976).
-1-
We conclude that there was sufficient evidence presented to enable a rational trier of fact
to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was the person who robbed the victims at gun
point. Wolfe, supra at 513-514. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, the record reflects that both victims identified defendant at trial, they were positive
of their identifications, and they had ample opportunity to view defendant during the course of
events that night. Id. The victims indicated that defendant was the individual they saw earlier in
the night while at a social gathering at a friend’s house. Defendant approached the gathering and
propositioned the victims to shoot dice with him in an alley, but they declined, despite his
persistence. The owner of the house where the social gathering took place corroborated the
victims’ testimony; she identified defendant as the individual who approached her house that
night and had a conflict. The robbery occurred later that night at another house. The victims
positively identified defendant as the person who entered that house and robbed them at
gunpoint. Their testimony was further corroborated by another occupant of the house, although
he could not identify defendant at trial. Although defendant argues several facts, claiming they
diminished the credibility of the identification testimony, determining witness credibility is a
matter that lies solely within the jury’s role, and we defer to the jury’s determination. Wolfe,
supra at 514-515; Watson, supra at 214.
We affirm.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
-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.
