People v. CarsonPeople v. Carson
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Hood
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of larceny of trees and shrubs over
Defendant claims he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for larceny.
At the close of proofs, just before final argument, defendant announced to the court that he was dissatisfied with his counsel; she had failed to subpoena certain witnesses. The trial judge advised defendant that he could give his own closing argument. He did not demand a Ginther 1 hearing and the same attorney represented him during his subsequent plea and sentencing. He has failed to convince us that he suffered any prejudice. Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984); People v Tommolino, 187 Mich App 14; 466 NW2d 315 (1991).
Defendant also claims that, because the prosecutor failed to negate every theory consistent with his innocence, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support his conviction.
We agree with the long line of recent cases holding that it is unnecessary for the prosecutor to negate every reasonable theory consistent with the defendant’s innocence. It is sufficient if the prosecution proves its own theory beyond a reasonable doubt in the face of whatever contradictory evidence the defendant may provide. People v Hahn, 183 Mich App 465, 470; 455 NW2d 310 (1989); People v Daniels, 163 Mich App 703, 707; 415 NW2d 282 (1987).
Affirmed.
Notes
People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).