People v. Smith-Anthony

155 Citing cases

  1. People v. Williams

    323 Mich. App. 202 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    In Williams, the defendant stole a ticket from "the deck of a slot machine" while a decoy police officer "sat with her back to the ticket about a foot away from the machine while she played on her cell phone."

    The elements of larceny from the person are " ‘(1) the taking of someone else’s property without consent, (2) movement of the property, (3) with the intent to steal or permanently deprive the owner of the property, and (4) the property was taken from the person or from the person’s immediate area of control or immediate presence.’ " People v. Smith-Anthony , 296 Mich. App. 413, 423 n. 5, 821 N.W.2d 172 (2012) (citation omitted), aff’d 494 Mich. 669 (2013). Defendant questions whether taking the ticket off the slot machine while the victim was one foot away constitutes taking from the victim’s immediate presence.

  2. People v. Lorenz

    No. 334171 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017)

    "To determine whether the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich 669, 676; 837 NW2d 415 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "The standard of review is deferential: a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict."

  3. People v. Maritime

    499 Mich. 389 (Mich. 2016)

    When, however, an undefined term is one that has “a settled, definite, and well known meaning at common law,” we will assume that the Legislature adopted that meaning “unless a contrary intent is plainly shown.” People v. Covelesky, 217 Mich. 90, 100, 185 N.W. 770 (1921), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by People v. Smith–Anthony, 494 Mich. 669, 697 n. 11, 837 N.W.2d 415 (2013) ; see also People v. Young, 418 Mich. 1, 13, 340 N.W.2d 805 (1983). “[T]echnical words and phrases, and such as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.”

  4. People v. March

    499 Mich. 389 (Mich. 2016)

    When, however, an undefined term is one that has “a settled, definite, and well known meaning at common law,” we will assume that the Legislature adopted that meaning “unless a contrary intent is plainly shown.” People v. Covelesky, 217 Mich. 90, 100, 185 N.W. 770 (1921), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by People v. Smith–Anthony, 494 Mich. 669, 697 n. 11, 837 N.W.2d 415 (2013) ; see also People v. Young, 418 Mich. 1, 13, 340 N.W.2d 805 (1983). “[T]echnical words and phrases, and such as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.”

  5. People v. Bowers

    No. 361364 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2024)

    "To determine whether the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor and determine 'whether a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich. 669, 676; 837 N.W.2d 415 (2013), quoting People v Tennyson, 487 Mich. 730, 735; 790 N.W.2d 354 (2010).

  6. Willingham v. Bauman

    Case No. 2:19-cv-221 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2019)

    To determine whether the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich 669, 676; 837 NW2d 415 (2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). (Mich. Ct. App. Op., ECF No. 1-6, PageID.104.)

  7. People v. Willingham

    No. 331267 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    "To determine whether the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich 669, 676; 837 NW2d 415 (2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is deferential.

  8. People v. Harris

    No. 361367 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 23, 2024)

    We examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it has presented sufficient evidence that could allow a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich. 669, 676; 837 N.W.2d 415 (2013). See also Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324; 99 S.Ct. 2781; 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

  9. People v. Radley

    No. 361883 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 27, 2023)

    "To determine whether the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich. 669, 676; 837 N.W.2d 415 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "The standard of review is deferential: a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict."

  10. People v. Gigliotti

    No. 359415 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2023)

    When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecutor, and this Court must consider whether, based on that evidence, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich. 669, 676; 837 N.W.2d 415 (2013). "The standard of review is deferential: a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict."