Background
Police responded to a neighborhood dispute involving Steven Michael Brooks and his sister, Rebecca Brooks. After officers warned the parties about disturbing the peace, an officer saw Brooks shove Rebecca with both hands on her shoulders. Brooks and Rebecca testified instead that he tried to hug her and that she pushed him away.
As officers approached, Brooks entered his vehicle and accelerated backward out of a driveway while an officer yelled for him to stop. Brooks reversed down the street, turned the vehicle around, and continued driving after officers activated their patrol car’s emergency lights and siren. Following a bench trial, the circuit court convicted him of third-degree fleeing and eluding and domestic violence. Brooks appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for both convictions.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that sufficient evidence supported the fleeing-and-eluding conviction because the dashcam video showed Brooks’s vehicle was moving when the officer issued a verbal command to stop, and Brooks was driving when officers later activated their lights and siren. A rational factfinder could infer that Brooks knew he had been ordered to stop and intentionally tried to flee by accelerating backward, driving away, and continuing despite the pursuing patrol car’s signals.
The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the domestic-violence conviction. The trial court was entitled to credit the officer’s testimony that Brooks shoved Rebecca, which established an offensive touching. Alternatively, even under Brooks’s account that he attempted to hug her, Rebecca’s forceful rejection could support a finding that she apprehended an immediate offensive touching.
Key Takeaways
- A fleeing-and-eluding conviction may rest on a stop signal given after the defendant begins driving, including emergency lights or a siren.
- Intent to flee may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as accelerating away, evasive driving, and continuing after police signals.
- Conflicting testimony does not make evidence insufficient when the factfinder reasonably credits the prosecution’s witnesses.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates Michigan’s deferential standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence after a bench trial. Appellate courts view the record in the prosecution’s favor and leave witness credibility choices to the factfinder.
It also confirms that domestic violence under MCL 750.81(2) may be established by either an offensive touching or conduct causing reasonable apprehension of an immediate offensive touching.