Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
V

UNPUBLISHED June 19, 2012

PAUL ARTHUR RIVARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 303854 Midland Circuit Court LC No. 10-004647-FH

Before: BECKERING, P.J., and FITZGERALD and STEPHENS, JJ. PER CURIAM. A jury convicted defendant of second-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(3), and larceny in a building, MCL 750.360. The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense offender, MCL 769.12, to prison terms of 120 months to 25 years for the home invasion conviction and 95 months to 15 years for the larceny conviction. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm. Defendant first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of second-degree home invasion. When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended on other grounds 441 Mich 1201. We do not second-guess the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence and testimony. People v Bulmer, 256 Mich App 33, 36; 662 NW2d 117 (2003). Our review of the evidence is deferential, and we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the jury's verdict. People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 399-400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000). The prosecution must prove two elements for the crime of second-degree home invasion: (1) defendant entered a dwelling, either by a breaking or without permission, and (2) defendant either had the intent to commit or actually committed a felony, larceny, or assault. See People v Nutt, 469 Mich 565, 593; 677 NW2d 1 (2004). Defendant does not deny that the crime actually occurred. Defendant only contends that insufficient evidence established his identity as the perpetrator of the crime and, in the alternative, that insufficient evidence established that he intended to commit a felony or larceny. We disagree. Evidence was presented that defendant began showing the complainant unwanted and odd attention shortly after the complainant and her family moved into the home next door to -1-

defendant's home. The complainant testified that defendant informed her that he knew her husband's schedule1 and that he paid close attention to the vehicles that came to and went from her home. She testified that defendant made unwelcome comments about her body, mowed her lawn without being asked, and offered to have a friend fix her van after the windows in the van had been broken. The complainant additionally described observing defendant walking down their adjacent driveways while zipping up his pants early one morning, then later that morning observing a man masturbating on her front porch. Though she did not see the face of the man on the porch, the complainant noted that the man was wearing the same clothing that defendant was had been wearing earlier that morning. In the approximate two months after the complainant moved into the home, her house was broken into eight or nine times. The break-ins all occurred when no one was home and while the complainant's husband was out of town. The complainant testified that defendant called her "bitch," among other names, and that after one of the break-ins "bitch" was carved on the top of the deadbolt on the door. Police officers eventually recovered a belt and shirt from defendant's fire pit. The complainant and her husband identified the items as their property. Defendant admitted to burning the items. The complainant also testified that she found a baby monitor under her dresser that did not belong to her family, and that defendant had made comments regarding complainant's private conversations that had taken place in her bedroom. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to infer that that defendant entered the home in question without permission and that while inside he took a belt and shirt. The evidence was sufficient to support each element of the offense of second-degree home invasion. Defendant next argues that his convictions for second-degree home invasion and larceny in a building violate his double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense. We disagree. Both the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution protect against being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. US Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V PAUL ARTHUR RIVARD.pdf

Michigan Law