Sufficiency of the evidence; Malicious destruction of fire or police property; MCL 750.377b; “Wilfully & maliciously”

Concluding that the “evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant was guilty of malicious destruction of fire or police property beyond a reasonable doubt[,]” the court affirmed. It found that Deputy B’s “testimony and the photographs supplied sufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant destroyed the mag lock wires.” Defendant argued “that even if the jury could find that she broke the wires, there was insufficient evidence to establish that she did so ‘wilfully and maliciously.’” B suggested “that defendant was made aware that she was engaged in wrongful conduct even if, however unlikely, she already was not aware of that fact.” The court noted that there “also was testimony by the mechanic who subsequently repaired the mag lock that its wires were made to be ‘double strong’ and would not become dislodged simply through accidental contact. Accordingly, the jury reasonably could have found that defendant was put on notice that her conduct was wrongful but, yet, she still decided to destroy the property at issue. In other words, the testimony permits a reasonable inference that defendant knew that severing the mag lock wires was wrong and that she did so intentionally.” Thus, the evidence “was sufficient to establish the ‘wilfully and maliciously’ element beyond a reasonable doubt.”