PEOPLE OF MI V SAMUEL JOSEPH BITHELL (Memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 23, 2011
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 298618
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2009-229051-FH
SAMUEL JOSEPH BITHELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: MARKEY, P.J., and SAAD and GLEICHER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
A jury convicted defendant of first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2), and the
trial court sentenced defendant as a third habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to five to forty years in
prison. Defendant appeals his conviction, and we affirm.
Defendant claims the prosecutor presented insufficient evidence to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he was the person who broke into the victim’s apartment and assaulted
him. We review de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. People v Malone, 287
Mich App 648, 654; 792 NW2d 7 (2010). MCL 750.110a(2) sets forth the elements of the crime
of first-degree home invasion:
A person who breaks and enters a dwelling with intent to commit a felony,
larceny, or assault in the dwelling, a person who enters a dwelling without
permission with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, or a
person who breaks and enters a dwelling or 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 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.
“When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this Court reviews the record in a light most
favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the
essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Malone, 287 Mich
-1-
App at 654. We resolve all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the prosecution, People v Fletcher,
260 Mich App 531, 562; 679 NW2d 127 (2004), and “afford deference to the jury’s special
opportunity to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses,” People v Unger,
278 Mich App 210, 228-229; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).
The prosecutor presented evidence that, at approximately midnight, the victim was in his
apartment when defendant kicked in his apartment door. Defendant then entered the apartment
and repeatedly assaulted the victim. After defendant left the apartment, the victim immediately
called the police, who confirmed the evidence of forcible entry, observed that the victim had
been beaten, and took photographs of the broken door and the victim’s injuries. Further, the
victim unequivocally identified defendant as his assailant. A detective questioned defendant and,
though he denied any involvement in the crime, he had swelling, abrasions, and cuts on his
knuckles. When asked about the injuries, defendant hid his hands under his armpits. The
evidence presented was clearly sufficient to establish the elements of first-degree home invasion
and that defendant committed the crime.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
-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.
