sufficiency of the evidence claim in Michigan

2022In reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, this Court “review[s] the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the prosecution had proved the crime’s elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” Lane, 308 Mich App at 57 .

2019In reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, this Court “review[s] the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the prosecution had proved the crime’s elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

2025A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge de novo, meaning “we do not defer to any decision made by the trial court, but instead employ our independent judicial views while employing the well-settled standards for deciding sufficiency issues.” People v Harverson, 291 Mich App 171, 176 ; 804 NW2d 757 (2010).

2025A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge de novo, meaning “we do not defer to any decision made by the trial court, but instead employ our independent judicial views while employing the well-settled standards for deciding sufficiency issues.” People v Harverson, 291 Mich App 171, 176 ; 804 NW2d 757 (2010).

2026The ultimate question to be resolved in a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is whether, on the basis of the evidence presented, “a rational trier of fact could find that the elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 618 ; 751 NW2d 57 (2008).

2026The ultimate question to be resolved in a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is whether, on the basis of the evidence presented, “a rational trier of fact could find that the elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 618 ; 751 NW2d 57 (2008).

2025We review de novo a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, People v Solloway, 316 Mich App 174, 180 ; 891 NW2d 255 (2016), examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether sufficient evidence has been presented to allow a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, see People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich 669, 676 ; 837 NW2d 415 (2013).

2025We review de novo a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, People v Solloway, 316 Mich App 174, 180 ; 891 NW2d 255 (2016), examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether sufficient evidence has been presented to allow a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, see People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich 669, 676 ; 837 NW2d 415 (2013).

2022When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the question is “whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 US at 319 .

2022When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the question is “whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 US at 319 .

2019People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 195 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010).

2019People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 195 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010).

1991People v Scott, 6 Mich 287, 295 (1859). [ People v Townes, 391 Mich 578, 589 ; 218 NW2d 136 (1974).] Once the sufficiency of the evidence standard as set forth in People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354, 368 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979), cert den sub nom Michigan v Hampton, 449 US 885 (1980), has been satisfied regarding the murder charge, the jury may consider the lesser charge if there is "only a modicum of evidence of provocation." People v King, 98 Mich App 146, 152 ; 296 NW2d 211 (1980).

1991People v Scott, 6 Mich 287, 295 (1859). [People v Townes, 391 Mich 578, 589 ; 218 NW2d 136 (1974).] Once the sufficiency of the evidence standard as set forth in People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354, 368 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979), cert den sub nom Michigan v Hampton, 449 US 885 (1980), has been satisfied regarding the murder charge, the jury may consider the lesser charge if there is "only a modicum of evidence of provocation.” People v King, 98 Mich App 146, 152 ; 296 NW2d 211 (1980).

2021People v Meissner, 294 Mich App 438, 452 ; 812 NW2d 37 (2011). [W]hen determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515 ; 489 NW2d 748 (1992).] It is the province of the trier of fact to determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence.

2021People v Meissner, 294 Mich App 438, 452 ; 812 NW2d 37 (2011). [W]hen determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515 ; 489 NW2d 748 (1992).] It is the province of the trier of fact to determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence.

2020When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, “this Court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecutor to determine whether any trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Robinson, 475 Mich 1, 5 ; 715 NW2d 44 (2006). “[I]mportantly, the standard of review is deferential: a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the . . . verdict.

2020When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, “this Court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecutor to determine whether any trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Robinson, 475 Mich 1, 5 ; 715 NW2d 44 (2006). “[I]mportantly, the standard of review is deferential: a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the . . . verdict.

2016People v Henry (After Remand), 305 Mich App 127, 142 ; 854 NW2d 114 (2014).

2016People v Henry (After Remand), 305 Mich App 127, 142 ; 854 NW2d 114 (2014).

2021People v Meissner, 294 Mich App 438, 452 ; 812 NW2d 37 (2011). [W]hen determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515 ; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992).] Appellate courts do not hear testimony of witnesses and, therefore, defer to the jury’s credibility determinations.

2016People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515 ; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). “[A] reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict.” People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400 ; 614 NW2d 78 (2000).

2020People v Lueth, 253 Mich App 670, 680 ; 660 NW2d 322 (2002).

2020People v Lueth, 253 Mich App 670, 680 ; 660 NW2d 322 (2002).

2019“Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom may be sufficient to prove all the elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Schumacher, 276 Mich App 165, 167 ; 740 NW2d 534 (2007). “[I]n reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we must defer to the fact-finder by drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving credibility conflicts in support of the jury verdict.” Id.

2019“Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom may be sufficient to prove all the elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Schumacher, 276 Mich App 165, 167 ; 740 NW2d 534 (2007). “[I]n reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we must defer to the fact-finder by drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving credibility conflicts in support of the jury verdict.” Id.

2017People v Reynolds, 195 Mich App 182, 184 ; 489 NW2d 128 (1992).

2017People v Reynolds, 195 Mich App 182, 184 ; 489 NW2d 128 (1992).

2017Defendant also raises evidentiary issues and a sufficiency of the evidence challenge with respect to the preliminary examination. “[E]videntiary error committed at the preliminary examination stage of [a] case does not require automatic reversal of the subsequent conviction absent a showing that defendant was prejudiced at trial.” People v Hall, 435 Mich 599, 602-603 ; 460 NW2d 520 (1990).

2017Defendant also raises evidentiary issues and a sufficiency of the evidence challenge with respect to the preliminary examination. “[E]videntiary error committed at the preliminary examination stage of [a] case does not require automatic reversal of the subsequent conviction absent a showing that defendant was prejudiced at trial.” People v Hall, 435 Mich 599, 602-603 ; 460 NW2d 520 (1990).

2017Id. at 487 . -1- Defendant first takes issue with the trial court’s determination that he violated the condition of his probation that required him to obtain “written permission” before changing his residence.

2017Id. at 487 . -1- Defendant first takes issue with the trial court’s determination that he violated the condition of his probation that required him to obtain “written permission” before changing his residence.

1987Basic Food Industries, Inc v Grant, 107 Mich App 685, 695 ; 310 NW2d 26 (1981).

1987Basic Food Industries, Inc v Grant, 107 Mich App 685, 695 ; 310 NW2d 26 (1981).

2026People v Osby, 291 Mich App 412, 415 , 804 NW2d 903 (2011), and is evaluated by asking whether “a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Alter, 255 Mich App 194, 201-202 ; 659 NW2d 667 (2003).

2026People v Osby, 291 Mich App 412, 415 , 804 NW2d 903 (2011), and is evaluated by asking whether “a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Alter, 255 Mich App 194, 201-202 ; 659 NW2d 667 (2003).

2026People v Osby, 291 Mich App 412, 415 , 804 NW2d 903 (2011), and is evaluated by asking whether “a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Alter, 255 Mich App 194, 201-202 ; 659 NW2d 667 (2003).

2026People v Osby, 291 Mich App 412, 415 , 804 NW2d 903 (2011), and is evaluated by asking whether “a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Alter, 255 Mich App 194, 201-202 ; 659 NW2d 667 (2003).

2025“Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising therefrom may constitute proof of the elements of the crime.” People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 472 ; 802 NW2d 627 (2010).

2024People v Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439, 457 ; 628 NW2d 105 (2001). -1- We review de novo a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim.

2024People v Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439, 457 ; 628 NW2d 105 (2001). -1- We review de novo a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim.

2022Accordingly, we conclude that defendant’s conduct in this case is -8- sufficient to constitute coercion under MCL 750.520e(1)(a). [Premo, 213 Mich App at 410-411 (citations omitted).] In People v Reid, 233 Mich App 457, 470 ; 592 NW2d 767 (1999), this Court upheld a defendant’s CSC-I convictions under a theory of constructive coercion in a sufficiency of the evidence challenge when the defendant manipulated a series of events that began with him establishing a kind of counselor-patient relationship with the victim.

2022Accordingly, we conclude that defendant’s conduct in this case is -8- sufficient to constitute coercion under MCL 750.520e(1)(a). [Premo, 213 Mich App at 410-411 (citations omitted).] In People v Reid, 233 Mich App 457, 470 ; 592 NW2d 767 (1999), this Court upheld a defendant’s CSC-I convictions under a theory of constructive coercion in a sufficiency of the evidence challenge when the defendant manipulated a series of events that began with him establishing a kind of counselor-patient relationship with the victim.

2021People v Tennyson, 487 Mich 730, 735 ; 790 NW2d 354 (2010).

2021People v Tennyson, 487 Mich 730, 735 ; 790 NW2d 354 (2010).