IN RE JABREL D MOORE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JABREL D. MOORE, Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 22, 2011
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 298640
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2007-469202-DL
JABREL D. MOORE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and JANSEN and FORT HOOD, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a bench trial, respondent, a juvenile, was adjudicated responsible for seconddegree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(3), and malicious destruction of a building less than $200,
MCL 750.380(5). He was sentenced to probation. He appeals as of right and we affirm. This
appeal has been decided without oral argument. MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent raises two issues on appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in
support of his adjudications. In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a
bench trial, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine
whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the offense were
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Robinson, 475 Mich 1, 5; 715 NW2d 44 (2006).
We disagree with respondent’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to identify
him as one of the perpetrators. Officer Moran identified respondent as the person he saw
“jumping out of the window” of the complainant’s house. This testimony was sufficient to
establish respondent’s identity. The credibility of Officer Moran’s identification testimony was
for the trier of fact to resolve, and this Court will not resolve it anew. People v Davis, 241 Mich
App 697, 700; 617 NW2d 381 (2000).
Respondent also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his adjudication for
malicious destruction of a building less than $200 because, although there was evidence that a
window was broken, no evidence was presented as to the value of the damaged property.
-1-
In general, the amount of damage caused by a defendant may be established by showing
either the difference in the property’s fair market value or the reasonable cost to repair the
damage or replace the property destroyed. See People v LaBelle, 231 Mich App 37, 38; 585
NW2d 756 (1998). As respondent correctly observes, there was testimony in this case that the
back bedroom window was “completely broken out,” but no testimony was presented concerning
the value of the damaged window. Respondent also correctly observes that he was found to have
committed an offense that has different degrees of culpability based on the value of the property
damaged. Because there was sufficient evidence that property of an unspecified value was
damaged, and respondent was found to have committed the least serious offense in the class of
offenses (malicious destruction of a building less than $200), respondent is not entitled to
appellate relief. See People v Mass, 464 Mich 615, 631; 628 NW2d 540 (2001) (noting that a
person who conspires to deliver an unspecified amount of cocaine may be found guilty of
conspiring to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine). It necessarily follows that one who has
committed the offense of malicious destruction of a building in an unspecified amount has, at a
minimum, caused destruction valued at less than $200. See id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
