PEOPLE OF MI V EDWARD LORENZOCO ANDREWS (Per Curiam Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 30, 2011
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 297313
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2009-228427-FC
EDWARD LORENZOCO ANDREWS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and JANSEN and SAAD, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first-degree home invasion, MCL
750.110a(2), and five counts of assault with intent to rob while armed, MCL 750.89. He was
sentenced as a habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12, to concurrent prison terms of 13
to 50 years for each conviction. Defendant appeals as of right and for the reasons set forth in this
opinion, we affirm the convictions and sentence of defendant.
Defendant’s convictions arise from his participation in an incident in which he, along
with codefendant Kimberly Grusnick and two other men, entered a trailer without permission
and threatened five people inside. The evidence showed that Grusnick and Chhoug Mak or a
person named “Ricko” entered the trailer without permission and politely asked for Luke
Dickerson, who was not present. While Mak or “Ricko” used the bathroom, Grusnick left and
said she would return. When Mak came out of the bathroom, he produced a gun and made
threats. Grusnick returned to the trailer accompanied by defendant and another man. Mak
searched Dickerson’s room. Some witnesses saw defendant rummage through the bedroom and
in the kitchen. Ultimately, Mak took a backpack containing an Xbox 360 video gaming system.
One witness testified that defendant took a pack of cigarettes. Within minutes after the incident,
defendant and his companions were apprehended by the police while in possession of the
backpack containing the Xbox and an envelope with the driver’s license, birth certificate, and
social security card of the owner of the backpack. The police later recovered a gun hidden in
their car and some duct tape that witnesses said Grusnick was holding during the offense.
On appeal, defendant argues that the jury’s verdict is against the great weight of the
evidence and that the trial court therefore abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new
trial. This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial for an
abuse of discretion. People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 648 n 27; 576 NW2d 129 (1998).
-1-
Defendant’s assertion that the jury’s verdict was against the great weight of the evidence
is predicated on two distinct theories. First, defendant argues that conflicts in the testimony of
the various witnesses is against the great weight of the evidence. “New trial motions based
solely on the weight of the evidence regarding witness credibility are not favored.” Id. at 639.
Absent exceptional circumstances, the issue of credibility should be left for the trier of fact. Id.
at 642. Even where the “testimony is in direct conflict and testimony supporting the verdict has
been impeached, if it cannot be said as a matter of law that the testimony thus impeached was
deprived of all probative value or that the jury could not believe it, the credibility of witnesses is
for the jury.” Id. at 643 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Exceptional
circumstances that may justify a new trial include testimony that “contradicts indisputable
physical facts or laws, where the testimony is patently incredible or defies physical realities,
where a witness’s testimony is material and so inherently implausible that it could not be
believed by a reasonable juror, or where the witness’ testimony has been seriously impeached
and the case marked by uncertainties and discrepancies.” Id. at 643-644 (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). A trial court may grant a new trial “only if the evidence preponderates
heavily against the verdict so that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow the verdict to
stand.” Id. at 627.
Although defendant contends that the accounts of the prosecution witnesses were not
consistent, the only discrepancy he references is that “[s]ome witnesses put [him] at the front of
the trailer; some said he was there in the back.” Defendant is correct that some witnesses saw
defendant in Dickerson’s room, others saw him in the front by the kitchen, and others saw him in
both places. The fact that the witnesses’ recollection on this point differed is not the type of
exceptional circumstance that would warrant the trial court interfering with the jury’s assessment
of credibility.
Second, defendant challenges the great weight of the evidence by asserting that a rational
trier of fact could not conclude that the essential elements of aiding and abetting were proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses identified defendant as one of the
perpetrators in the trailer. No one authorized defendant’s entry. Contrary to defendant’s
assertion that he was merely present at the scene of the crime, the evidence clearly indicated that
defendant was an active participant in the seizure of items from the trailer. Joshua Knope saw
defendant looking in the freezer for money. Chad Hipkins saw a man matching defendant’s
description rummaging through Dickerson’s closet while stating that Dickerson owed him
money. Sabrina Desjardins and Monica Pepin also saw defendant searching Dickerson’s room.
Pepin testified that defendant took a pack of cigarettes. Defendant left with the other
perpetrators. Although defendant did not threaten the complainants and did not personally
remove the backpack, a jury could reasonably infer from the testimony that defendant acted in
concert with Mak in the perpetration of the crimes. The evidence does not “preponderate so
heavily against the verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow the verdict to stand.”
People v Musser, 259 Mich App 215, 218-219; 673 NW2d 800 (2003). Accordingly, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
-2-
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Henry William Saad
-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.