Opinion
No. 351394
01-28-2021
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OLOWJAHWON JAMES WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Monroe Circuit Court
LC No. 19-245174-FH Before: JANSEN, P.J., and SERVITTO and RIORDAN, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial conviction of larceny in a building, MCL 750.360. The trial court sentenced defendant to 105 days in jail and three years' probation. We affirm.
Defendant raises a single argument on appeal: that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of larceny in a building. Specifically, defendant argues there was insufficient evidence that he intended to permanently deprive the complainant of her property. We disagree.
A defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed de novo. People v Miller, 326 Mich App 719, 735; 929 NW2d 821 (2019). When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we review the evidence "in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the prosecution proved the crime's elements beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. "[I]t is the role of the jury, not this Court, to determine the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses." People v Eisen, 296 Mich App 326, 331; 820 NW2d 229 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, "a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict." People v Oros, 502 Mich 229, 239; 917 NW2d 559 (2018) (quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted).
MCL 750.360 provides, in relevant part, "Any person who shall commit the crime of larceny by stealing in . . . any building used by the public shall be guilty of a felony." "Because the statute does not define the term 'larceny,' it is afforded its common-law meaning." People v Thorne, 322 Mich App 340, 344, 912 NW2d 560 (2017). "Based on the common-law understanding of larceny, the elements of larceny in a building are as follows: (1) a trespassory taking (2) within the confines of a building and (3) the carrying away (4) of the personal property (5) of another (6) with intent to steal that property." Id. Larceny is a specific intent crime. Id. at 348. The specific intent required for larceny is "an intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession." People v Pratt, 254 Mich App 425, 427-428, 656 NW2d 866 (2002).
In this matter, Cynthia Plummer testified that she lived in an apartment with her brother, defendant, and defendant's friend in February 2018. On February 16, 2018, Plummer returned home from work, placed money in the kitchen, and went into her bedroom. Sometime later, Plummer's brother told her that defendant and his friend were gone, as were defendant's and his friend's personal belongings. Plummer looked in the kitchen for her money and discovered it was gone. Plummer called defendant that night, and defendant denied taking the money. However, Plummer testified that defendant later apologized to her for taking the money and told her he would repay her once he got a job. Plummer further testified that defendant had not repaid her as of the date of the trial in August 2019. Sarah Windels also testified that defendant spoke to her in person in April 2018 or May 2018 and, during their conversation, defendant told Windels that he had gotten a new job, and that he had spoken to Plummer and planned to repay her.
"Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences that arise from such evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of the crime." People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 619; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). "It is for the trier of fact, not the appellate court, to determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and to determine the weight to be accorded those inferences." Oros, 502 Mich at 239 (quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted).
The jury could reasonably find from Plummer's testimony that, the night the money was stolen, defendant left the apartment and did not plan to return. The jury could also reasonably find from Plummer's and Windels's testimony that defendant had not returned the money to Plummer more than a year after allegedly taking it, despite promising that he would return the money after getting a job and his subsequent acquisition of a job. From this, the jury could infer that defendant intended to permanently deprive Plummer of the money. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed larceny in a building. Miller, 326 Mich App at 735.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
/s/ Michael J. Riordan