Sufficiency of the evidence for an AWIGBH conviction; Sufficiency of the evidence for an assault & battery conviction; Self-defense; MCL 780.972(1)(a) & (2)

Holding that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s AWIGBH and assault and battery convictions, and to disprove her self-defense claim, the court affirmed. The assault and battery victim was her daughter, J, and the AWIGBH victim was her mother, P. The trial court in her bench trial resolved the credibility issues against her, and the court could not say this was error. There was sufficient evidence for it “to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant attempted with force or violence to do harm to [P].” She admitted, and J and P both testified, that she hit P “in the head with a hammer.” While this is not a dangerous weapon per se, defendant used it as one when she hit P in the head with it. Further, there was sufficient evidence that she did not act in self-defense when she did so. Contrary to her testimony, P and J testified that P “just approached defendant’s door to continue a discussion and defendant then hit her with the hammer.” J stated that she saw defendant strike P once, and P stated defendant hit “her a second time on the back, center of her head. The trial court found that defendant’s version of events lacked credibility” and the court will not interfere with the trier of fact’s determinations of the weight of the evidence or the witnesses’ credibility. The court also rejected defendant’s challenge to the assault and battery conviction. “Again, the only evidence showing that the altercation between defendant and [J] was a mutual combat came from defendant’s testimony. Again, the trial court resolved the credibility issues against the defendant based upon evidence in the record.” It explained that J’s testimony described “many blows” landed on her by defendant, and photos showed “a number of scrapes and bruises and slightly open wounds[.]” According to J, these occurred in the scuffle during the assault. Further, after the scuffle ended, J indicated that she went to her room. Defendant “was no longer acting in self-defense; rather, defendant was the aggressor when she followed [J] to her room and then slapped” her face. While she denied doing so, the trial court found J’s testimony more credible, and there was no reason to disturb this finding.