People v. Eggleston
| Citation | 386 N.W.2d 637,149 Mich.App. 665 |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 81323 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eldridge Lee EGGLESTON, Defendant-Appellant. 149 Mich.App. 665, 386 N.W.2d 637 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
[149 MICHAPP 666] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Michael W. LaBeau, Pros. Atty., and Lawrence J. VanWasshenova, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
John E. Luchansky, Jr., Lambertville, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
[149 MICHAPP 667] Before GRIBBS, P.J., and HOOD and DAVIS *, JJ.
Defendant was charged with one count of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520b(1)(d); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(d), and with one count of assault with intent to commit murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.83; M.S.A. Sec. 28.278. Pursuant to a bench trial, defendant was acquitted of the criminal sexual conduct count and convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.84; M.S.A. Sec. 28.279. Defendant appeals as of right.
On appeal, defendant claims that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in an appeal from a bench trial, this Court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, People v. Marlin Smith, 119 Mich.App. 91, 94, 326 N.W.2d 434 (1982); People v. Gregory Johnson, 112 Mich.App. 483, 489, 316 N.W.2d 247 (1982), or whether the court clearly erred, People v. Triplett, 105 Mich.App. 182, 190-191, 306 N.W.2d 442 (1981), remanded 414 Mich. 898, 323 N.W.2d 7 (1982); People v. Anderson, 112 Mich.App. 640, 648, 317 N.W.2d 205 (1981).
Defendant was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm on an aider and abettor theory. In People v. Vicuna, 141 Mich.App. 486, 495-496, 367 N.W.2d 887 (1985), this Court summarized the law applicable to aiding and abetting:
Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder is a specific intent crime. People v. Mack, 112 Mich.App. 605, 317 N.W.2d 190 (1981); People v. Gilliam, 27 Mich.App. 314, 183 N.W.2d 364 (1970) lv.den. 384 Mich. 790 (1970). In order to convict the defendant at bar, therefore, the prosecution had to establish that defendant either possessed the specific intent to do great bodily harm or knew that the principal possessed that specific intent. Defendant's specific intent or his knowledge of the principal's specific intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. People v. Vicuna, supra, 141 Mich.App. p. 496, 367 N.W.2d 887; People v. Kramer, 108 Mich.App. 240, 310 N.W.2d 347 (1981).
At the trial in this case, complainant indicated that defendant and his brother, Robert Eggleston, threw her in the back of defendant's truck. Defendant raped the complainant and then entered the cab of the truck. Robert Eggleston then entered the rear of the truck and yelled to defendant to drive to Toledo.
[149 MICHAPP 669] Robert then raped the complainant and stabbed her six or seven times in the chest with a pocket knife. The complainant tried to play dead, but Robert continued to rape her.
After a while, defendant stopped the truck, came around to the back and, upon seeing that the complainant was bleeding, told Robert to let her go. Robert refused, saying that he was going to finish her off and dump her in the water. Defendant got back in the cab of the truck and continued to drive South.
Complainant continued to struggle with Robert, who stabbed her again and again. Complainant tried to climb out the back window and eventually fell off the truck onto a gravel road. When she saw the brake lights of the truck go on, she ran away.
The complainant ran an unknown distance until she spotted a house. After she smashed through a window of the bathroom, the owners of the house called the police and rescue squad. The complainant was taken to a hospital where she was treated for multiple stab wounds, a collapsed right lung, contusions and abrasions.
Approximately one-half hour after complainant was found, defendant and his brother were pulled over by the police for speeding. Upon finding blood on the truck and a female shoe, woman's watch, underwear and a blood stained knife in the truck, the police arrested defendant and his brother for the assault on the complainant.
Defendant testified on his own behalf and contradicted the complainant's story. He denied raping complainant and indicated that complainant got into the back of the truck with Robert willingly. He also indicated that he could not see or hear what transpired in the back of the truck because of the rain that was falling, the noise from [149 MICHAPP 670] the snow tires on the gravel road and the music from the radio.
He claimed that he stopped the truck when he heard a window break in the back of the truck. When he went to the rear, he was shocked to see his brother covered with blood. His brother told him that complainant had jumped out of the truck. Defendant turned the truck around, looked for complainant for a while and then headed for home. On the way home, Robert told him that he had stabbed the complainant.
Robert Eggleston also testified at trial and basically corroborated defendant's testimony. He explained that, when he and complainant got into the back of the truck, he was unable to have intercourse with complainant because of his intoxicated condition. The complainant got angry about this and assaulted Robert with an electrical cord that was in the truck. Robert pulled his knife out in self-defense. He admitted stabbing her and stated that, when he tried to stop her bleeding, she jumped out of the truck. Robert yelled for his brother to stop the truck and banged on the window, leaving a bloody handprint. Defendant eventually heard him and stopped the truck.
The prosecution introduced into evidence a voluntary tape recorded statement that defendant had made several hours after he was taken into custody. This statement contradicted several parts of his trial testimony, particularly as to defendant's ability to see and hear what was occurring in the back of the truck.
In its findings of fact, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bailey
...well as words." Similarly, the jury may infer the defendant's specific intent from the circumstantial evidence. People v. Eggleston, 149 Mich.App. 665, 386 N.W.2d 637 (1986), citing People v. Vicuna, 141 Mich.App. 486, 367 N.W.2d 887 (1985). The key point is that the jury could have rejecte......
-
People v. Champion
... ... This Court must accord a significant measure of deference to the trial judge's credibility judgment because he was in the best position to decide the officers' respective believability. See Kirilloff v. Glinisty, 375 Mich. 586, 134 N.W.2d 707 (1965); People v. Eggleston, 149 Mich.App. 665, 386 N.W.2d 637 (1986) ... The majority's failure to do so has allowed it to conclude that probable cause to arrest existed when, [452 Mich. 133] in fact, it did not. Once it has been determined that the officers did not see defendant leave his vehicle upon ... ...
-
People v. Johnson
...courts give great deference to the superior ability of the trial court in matters relating to credibility, id.; People v. Eggleston, 149 Mich.App. 665, 671, 386 N.W.2d 637 (1986). In our opinion, jurors with real life experiences, who acknowledge that they can be free of bias and prejudice,......
-
Meade v. Lavigne
...circumstantial evidence.'" Warren v. Smith, 161 F.3d 358, 361 (6th Cir.1998) (quoting People v. Eggleston, 149 MichApp. 665, 668, 386 N.W.2d 637, 639 (1986)). The Michigan Court of Appeals summarized the evidence against Petitioner as [T]he evidence established that [petitioner Jamie] Meade......