People of Michigan v. Jennifer Marie Curry
370052
Mich. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background:
- Defendant Jennifer Marie Curry was charged with malicious destruction of fire or police property under MCL 750.377b and one count of assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer.
- The incident occurred during a jail transfer, when Defendant was in Deputy Buchanan’s patrol car and allegedly broke wires connected to a rifle retention mechanism (mag lock).
- Photographs showed the wires were severed, and testimony indicated the wires were intact before Defendant entered the patrol car.
- At trial, the jury convicted Curry of malicious destruction of police property but acquitted her on the assault/resisting charge.
- Defendant appealed, claiming insufficient evidence supported the verdict, specifically arguing lack of proof of required willful and malicious intent.
- The appeal also referenced a procedural complaint about preservation of evidence, but the appellate court declined to address it due to inadequate briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Destruction | Defendant intentionally destroyed mag lock wires; evidence and testimony support this. | Evidence does not prove intent was willful and malicious. | The evidence, including testimony and photos, was sufficient. |
| Proof of Specific Intent (willful/malicious) | Actions, movement, and response to warning show intent. | No evidence she knew breaking wires was wrong or did so intentionally. | Conduct and circumstances reasonably support a finding of intent. |
| Requirement to Preserve Evidence | N/A | Procedural error in loss of patrol car as evidence. | Not properly presented; court declines to address. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Kenny, 332 Mich App 394 (standard for sufficiency of evidence review on appeal)
- People v Richardson, 118 Mich App 492 (defines elements and intent for malicious destruction of police property)
- People v Bosca, 310 Mich App 1 (intent can be inferred from defendant's conduct)
- People v Oros, 502 Mich 229 (appellate courts must view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)