People v. Maynor

71 Citing cases

  1. People v. Borom

    No. 313750 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2013)

    This statute requires the prosecution to show that the defendant intended to cause serious physical harm or knew that serious physical harm would be caused. See People v Maynor, 470 Mich 289, 295-297; 683 NW2d 565 (2004). The question is whether, by failing to act to prevent harm to his or her child, a parent can be found to have intended to cause serious physical harm or have had knowledge that serious physical harm would be caused.

  2. People v. Borom

    497 Mich. 931 (Mich. 2014)

    To prove first-degree child abuse, the prosecutor must show that the “defendant intended to commit the act” and that the “defendant intended to cause serious physical [or serious mental] harm or knew that serious physical [or serious mental] harm would be caused by” the act. People v. Maynor, 470 Mich. 289, 291, 683 N.W.2d 565 (2004).According to the dissent, defendant did not possess the necessary intent to sustain the first-degree child abuse charge arising out of the third injury. First, the dissent contends that defendant did not possess the necessary intent as a principal because she did not intend to cause serious physical or serious mental harm by leaving the child with her boyfriend, nor did she know that serious physical or serious mental harm would be caused by doing so.

  3. People v. Burks

    308 Mich. App. 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014)

    MCL 750.136b(2) provides that “[a] person is guilty of child abuse in the first degree if the person knowingly or intentionally causes serious physical or serious mental harm to a child.” In People v. Maynor, 470 Mich. 289, 291, 683 N.W.2d 565 (2004), our Supreme Court held that to be convicted of this offense the prosecution must prove and the jury must find “not only that [the] defendant intended to commit the act, but also that [the] defendant intended to cause serious physical harm or knew that serious physical harm would be caused by [his or] her act.” Although the jury need not be instructed regarding “specific intent,” it must be “instructed that it must find that [the] defendant either knowingly or intentionally caused the harm.”

  4. People v. Burks

    308 Mich. App. 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014)

    MCL 750.136b(2) provides that “[a] person is guilty of child abuse in the first degree if the person knowingly or intentionally causes serious physical or serious mental harm to a child.” In People v. Maynor, 470 Mich. 289, 291, 683 N.W.2d 565 (2004), our Supreme Court held that to be convicted of this offense the prosecution must prove and the jury must find “not only that [the] defendant intended to commit the act, but also that [the] defendant intended to cause serious physical harm or knew that serious physical harm would be caused by [his or] her act.” Although the jury need not be instructed regarding “specific intent,” it must be “instructed that it must find that [the] defendant either knowingly or intentionally caused the harm.”

  5. People v. Sewejkis

    No. 310809 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 3, 2013)

    After both parties rested, the prosecution and defendant stipulated to the standard jury instruction for first-degree child abuse. When the trial court gave the jury instruction, defense counsel objected, contending that the instruction did not comply with the Michigan Supreme Court's opinion in People v Maynor, 470 Mich 289; 683 NW2d 565 (2004). The trial court overruled the objection and stated that defense counsel should have submitted a special jury instruction to the court beforehand.

  6. People v. Rao

    No. 289343 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2012)   Cited 1 times
    Finding no plain error where multiple acts of abuse resulting in various injuries of differing *11ages “were not materially distinct and all involved child physical abuse perpetrated on [the child]”

    To establish second-degree child abuse, the prosecution was required to prove that defendant committed a reckless act that caused serious physical harm or serious mental harm to her child. MCL 750.136b(3)(a); People v Maynor, 470 Mich 289, 300; 683 NW2d 565 (2004) (WEAVER, J., concurring).Alternatively, the prosecutor was required to show that defendant knowingly or intentionally committed an act that was likely to cause the child serious physical or mental harm, regardless whether such harm resulted.

  7. Hains v. Mackie

    Case No. 1:17-cv-778 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2018)

    In other words, defendant challenges whether "defendant intended to [commit the act], [and] also that, by doing so, defendant intended to cause serious physical harm or [he] knew that serious physical harm would be caused." People v Maynor, 470 Mich 289, 297; 683 NW2d 565 (2004). "[B]ecause it can be difficult to prove a defendant's state of mind on issues such as knowledge and intent, minimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant's state of mind, which can be inferred from all the evidence presented."

  8. People v. McCovery

    No. 348895 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 21, 2022)

    " MCL 750.136b(1)(d). "Knowingly or intentionally" means that to convict a defendant of first-degree child abuse, the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to cause serious physical harm or that he knew that serious physical harm would be caused by his actions. People v Maynor, 470 Mich. 289, 295-296; 683 N.W.2d 565 (2004). "Serious physical harm" is defined as "any physical injury to a child that seriously impairs the child's health or physical well-being, including, but not limited to, brain damage, a skull or bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, dislocation, sprain, internal injury, poisoning, burn or scald, or severe cut.

  9. People v. Worth-McBride

    No. 331602 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 13, 2017)

    The phrase "knowingly or intentionally" modifies "causes serious physical or serious mental harm to a child," requiring more than an intent to commit an act. People v Maynor, 470 Mich 289, 295; 683 NW2d 565 (2004). The prosecution must prove that a defendant intended to cause serious physical or mental harm to a child through the defendant's act, or that a defendant knew that serious mental or physical harm would be caused by the defendant's act.

  10. People v. Roberts

    No. 327296 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 6, 2017)

    Accordingly, the primary issue at trial was whether defendant intended to cause the child serious physical harm when he pulled on the child's ankles, or whether he knew that serious physical harm would be the result. See People v Maynor, 470 Mich 289, 295; 683 NW2d 565 (2004). Similarly, in order to establish that defendant committed second-degree murder, the prosecution had to show that defendant acted with the intent to kill the child, intended to cause great bodily harm, or acted in "wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of [his] behavior [was] to cause death or great bodily harm."