e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 73986
Opinion Date : 10/15/2020
e-Journal Date : 10/21/2020
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : People v. Williams
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Swartzle, Jansen, and Borrello
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Sufficiency of the evidence for second-degree murder & armed robbery convictions; MCL 750.317; People v. Smith; Aiding & abetting; People v. Robinson; MCL 767.39; People v. Bulls; People v. Lawton; People v. Carines; MCL 750.529; People v. Chambers; “Attempt”; People v. Williams

Summary

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s second-degree murder and armed robbery convictions under an aiding and abetting theory, the court affirmed. He argued “he did not perform acts or give encouragement that assisted” the gunman (N) committing the armed robbery. But the court found that the record showed otherwise. When defendant received a text message about picking up his sister at a home, N indicated his intent to harm the homeowner (D). He asked defendant if D “had any money, and defendant responded in the affirmative. With a gun in hand, [N] told defendant that he planned to rob [D]. Knowing of [N’s] plan and the fact that he was armed with a gun, defendant” allowed N to ride with him in his girlfriend’s vehicle, and he stood next to N while he rang D’s doorbell. When N shot defendant’s uncle (Y), “defendant yelled, ‘No, that’s my uncle!’ From this utterance, the jury could have concluded that defendant knew that a person other than [Y] was the intended target of the robbery and that the wrong person had been shot. ‘Aiding and abetting describes all forms of assistance rendered to the perpetrator of a crime and comprehends all words or deeds that might support, encourage, or incite the commission of a crime.’” In addition, a person’s death is “the natural and probable consequence of committing an armed robbery with a loaded gun.” As to the armed robbery conviction, defendant contended that there was no armed robbery “because no one was robbed and nothing was taken. Contrary to defendant’s argument, a completed larceny is not required to support a conviction of armed robbery. ‘[W]hen an intended robber is in possession of, appears to be in possession of, or represents that he is in possession of a dangerous weapon as stated in MCL 750.529, that person may be guilty of armed robbery even if the larcenous taking is not completed.’”

Full PDF Opinion