People v. Sherman-Huffman
Decision Date | 29 August 2000 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 217609. |
Citation | 615 N.W.2d 776,241 Mich. App. 264 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bonnie June SHERMAN-HUFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, James J. Gregart, Prosecuting Attorney, and Judith B. Ketchum, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
State Appellate Defender (by Gail Rodwan), for the defendant on appeal.
Before: DOCTOROFF, P.J., and SAWYER and MARK J. CAVANAGH, JJ.
Defendant was convicted of third-degree child abuse, M.C.L. § 750.136b(5); MSA 28.331(2)(5), following a bench trial. She was sentenced to two years' probation, with the final sixty days to be served in jail, subject to judicial review. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant challenges whether sufficient evidence was presented supporting a conclusion that she specifically intended to harm her daughter. Generally, we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a bench trial de novo and in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the trial court could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Ortiz-Kehoe, 237 Mich.App. 508, 520, 603 N.W.2d 802 (1999).
Initially, we must determine whether third-degree child abuse is a specific intent crime. We find that it is. This question is one of first impression.
MCL 750.136b(5); MSA 28.331(2)(5) provides: "A person is guilty of child abuse in the third degree if the person knowingly or intentionally causes physical harm to a child." The statutory language is substantially similar to the language employed in M.C.L. § 750.136b(2); MSA 28.331(2)(2), which provides that a person is guilty of first-degree child abuse "if the person knowingly or intentionally causes serious physical or serious mental harm to a child."
In People v. Gould, 225 Mich.App. 79, 84-85, 570 N.W.2d 140 (1997), we concluded that first-degree child abuse is a specific intent crime. In reaching this conclusion, we relied on a previous ruling by this Court that "where a statute requires that the criminal act be committed either `purposefully' or `knowingly,' the crime is a specific intent crime." Id. at 85, 570 N.W.2d 140 (citing People v. Lerma, 66 Mich.App. 566, 569-570, 239 N.W.2d 424 [1976]). In addition, the Gould panel summarized the distinction between "specific intent" and "general intent" as follows:
[ Gould, supra at 85, 570 N.W.2d 140, quoting Lerma, supra, at 569-570, 239 N.W.2d 424 (emphasis added.]
In light of the nearly identical statutory wording of the first-degree and third-degree child abuse provisions, we believe that third-degree child abuse is a "specific intent" crime. Thus, defendant's conviction required sufficient evidence to establish that defendant subjectively desired or knew that the prohibited result would occur.
In the instant matter, defendant testified that before the spankings she gave her daughter, her daughter was "getting real, real lippy," and said some things that were "quite piercing." In addition, defendant testified that the spankings were hard enough to cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Maynor
...as dictum. See People v. Gould, 459 Mich. 955, 590 N.W.2d 572 (1999). 9. Gould, supra at 84-85. 10. Id. 11. People v. Sherman-Huffman, 241 Mich.App. 264, 266, 615 N.W.2d 776 (2000). 12. People v. Sherman-Huffman, 466 Mich. 39, 40, 642 N.W.2d 339 (2002). 13. Id. at 40 n. 2, 642 N.W.2d 339. 1......
-
People v. Martin
...are without merit. A. Standard of Review We review de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. People v. Sherman-Huffman, 241 Mich.App. 264, 265, 615 N.W.2d 776 (2000). When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim in a criminal case, "this Court views the evidence in the li......
-
People v. Harverson.
...our independent judicial views while employing the well-settled standards for deciding sufficiency issues. People v. Sherman–Huffman, 241 Mich.App. 264, 265, 615 N.W.2d 776 (2000), aff'd 466 Mich. 39, 642 N.W.2d 339 (2002) (employing de novo review of sufficiency argument from a bench trial......
- American Medical Security v. Auto Club Insurance of MI
-
Judicial Exploitation of Mens Rea Confusion, at Common Law and Under the Model Penal Code
...regarding contempt, see Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law 588-602 (3d ed. 1982). [107]. See People v. Sherman-Huffman, 615 N.W.2d 776, 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (construing Mich. Comp. Laws Sec. 750.136b(5) (1991 & Supp. 2000), which used the terminology "knowingly or intent......