People of Michigan v. Shaneka Monique Torres
334067
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Early morning Feb 10, 2014, Torres (passenger) and Ray (driver) went through a McDonald’s drive‑through; Torres received an incorrect order and complained at the window.
- After returning the order, Torres reached into her purse, a firearm discharged, shattering the driver’s window and sending a bullet into the restaurant; no one was injured.
- Firearms examiner testified the pistol was functioning and required about six pounds of trigger pressure; no mechanical malfunction was found.
- At trial the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony (including statements of anger and an alleged expletive) to prove intent to discharge at an occupied building.
- Torres was convicted by a jury of carrying a concealed weapon, intentional discharge of a firearm at an occupied building, and felony‑firearm; sentences were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — intentional discharge at an occupied building | Evidence (actions, words, functioning gun) supports intent to fire at an occupied facility | Gun discharged accidentally while reaching in purse; no proof of intent | Affirmed — viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, a rational juror could find intent beyond reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency — felony‑firearm (possession during felony) | If intentional discharge proven, possession during felony is established | Contingent on overturning intentional‑discharge conviction | Affirmed — possession established because discharge conviction supported by evidence |
| Great‑weight challenge to intentional‑discharge verdict | N/A (plaintiff seeks to uphold verdict) | Verdict against great weight because of conflicting testimony and accident theory | No plain error; verdict not against great weight — reasonably supported by evidence |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — comment on defendant’s silence/new trial motion | Prosecutor responded to defense argument pointing out lack of evidence of defendant’s feelings; trial court and prosecutor instructed jury defendant had right not to testify | Comment impermissibly invited jurors to infer guilt from silence | No reversible error — prosecutor’s remark responded to defense, trial court instructed jury on right not to testify, jury presumed to follow instructions; trial court did not abuse discretion denying new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (2011) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Nowack, 462 Mich. 392 (2000) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution; reasonable inferences and credibility choices)
- People v. Kanaan, 278 Mich. App. 594 (2008) (minimal circumstantial evidence may establish intent)
- People v. Avant, 235 Mich. App. 499 (1999) (elements of felony‑firearm require possession during commission of felony)
- People v. Buckey, 424 Mich. 1 (1985) (prosecutor may not comment on defendant’s failure to testify)