Opinion
No. 331236
04-25-2017
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD OTIS FARMER, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED Kalamazoo Circuit Court
LC No. 2014-001880-FC Before: BECKERING, P.J., and MARKEY and SHAPIRO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his convictions after a jury trial for assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH), MCL 750.84, and armed robbery, MCL 750.529. The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to 10 to 20 years' imprisonment for AWIGBH, to be served concurrently to a sentence of 10 to 20 years' imprisonment for armed robbery. We affirm.
This case arises from an altercation that occurred during an illegal drug transaction. Defendant contends that the evidence submitted at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for armed robbery. In reviewing a claim that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, we must view the evidence in the 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. People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 471-472; 802 NW2d 627 (2010). We "will not interfere with the jury's determinations regarding the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses." People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 222; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).
Defendant does not raise any argument regarding his AWIGBH conviction.
According to the testimony of the victim, he had arranged to meet with defendant to exchange a large sum of money for pseudoephedrine pills. The victim drove to meet defendant along with a friend, Sarah Richards. Defendant did not come alone, and as soon as defendant got in the back seat of the victim's car, the other individual pulled out a gun, and, according to the victim, defendant then demanded money. Richards testified that upon hearing this demand, she told defendant to go. The victim then accelerated the car and a scuffle ensued while defendant attempted to get the victim to stop the vehicle by wresting with him for control of the steering wheel and gear shift. The victim testified that during this scuffle he heard defendant tell the individual with the gun to shoot him. The victim was then shot, the car came to a stop, and both defendant and the other individual fled the scene.
At trial, in both their opening and closing statements as well as their questioning of the witnesses, both the prosecutor and defense counsel frequently referred to this other individual as Kadaron Richmond. However, neither the victim nor Richards, the only witnesses to testify about the events that happened in the vehicle, ever identified this third individual.
Richards was in the front passenger seat, and the victim had a child car seat in the rear driver's seat. Defendant sat in the back middle seat. The victim testified that the individual who accompanied defendant was halfway inside and halfway outside of the vehicle with the rear passenger side door still open.
The prosecution alleged that defendant was guilty of armed robbery on a theory of aiding and abetting. To convict defendant on a theory of aiding and abetting, the prosecution was required to prove: (1) that the crime was actually committed by someone; (2) that defendant procured, counseled, assisted, or encouraged the commission of the crime; and (3) that defendant intended the commission of the crime, had knowledge that the other person intended to commit the crime, or knew that the crime was a natural and probable consequence of the actions. People v Robinson, 475 Mich 1, 6; 715 NW2d 44 (2006). Defendant does not dispute that there was evidence that the individual who accompanied him attempted to rob the victim. However, defendant alleges that there is not sufficient evidence that he did anything to assist or encourage this individual and that there is not sufficient evidence that he had knowledge that this individual would commit a crime. Additionally, defendant alleges that any demands he made for money from the victim were simply demands that the victim pay for the pseudoephedrine pills.
While defendant did not testify at trial, he did not contest the fact that the other individual had a gun, that a fight broke out, and that the other individual shot the victim during this fight. Defendant's claim at trial was that the other individual initiated the confrontation without his knowledge and that the ensuing conflict was simply a drug deal that went south.
Contrary to defendant's arguments, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that he procured, counseled, assisted, or encouraged the commission of the armed robbery. The victim explicitly testified that as soon as he tried to drive away, defendant reached up and fought with him for control of the vehicle and that, when these efforts failed, defendant explicitly told the other individual to shoot him. From this testimony, a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant made that statement to encourage the commission of the crime. The victim also testified that defendant was the one who made the demand for money. The jury was free to believe and credit the victim's account about what words defendant uttered in the course of the scuffle. Unger, 278 Mich App at 222. Uttering "words or deeds that might support, encourage, or incite the commission of a crime" constitutes evidence of aiding and abetting. People v Turner, 213 Mich App 558, 568; 540 NW2d 728 (1995), overruled in part on other grounds by People v Mass, 464 Mich 615, 627-628; 628 NW2d 540 (2001). Furthermore, a jury could infer from these statements that defendant intended the commission of the crime or knew that the crime was a natural and probable consequence of the actions.
"Because of the difficulty of proving an actor's state of mind, minimal circumstantial evidence is sufficient." People v McRunels, 237 Mich App 168, 181; 603 NW2d 95 (1999). --------
Finally, while the requisite intent for armed robbery is negated if defendant had a good faith belief that he was entitled to the property in question, People v Holcomb, 395 Mich 326, 333; 235 NW2d 343 (1975), knowledge that the claim to the property arose from an illegal transaction negates any good faith belief that defendant was entitled to the property, People v Hobbs, 68 Mich App 239, 241; 242 NW2d 535 (1976). Therefore, defendant's argument that any money he demanded from the victim was owed him cannot negate an element of the offense because any right defendant claims he had to that money arose out of an illegal transaction.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro