AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of armed robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and tampering with evidence. The appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, highlighting inconsistent testimony, deals made with witnesses by the State, and the absence of DNA or fingerprint evidence. Additionally, the Defendant contested the sufficiency of evidence due to no testimony regarding the suspect's race (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, citing inconsistent testimony, witness deals with the State, and lack of DNA or fingerprint evidence. Additionally, contended that the lack of testimony about the suspect's race undermined the evidence's sufficiency (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for armed robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and tampering with evidence.
• Whether the absence of testimony regarding the suspect's race affects the sufficiency of evidence to support the convictions (paras 2-3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for armed robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and tampering with evidence (para 4).

Reasons

• Per KRISTINA BOGARDUS, J. (SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, J., and JANE B. YOHALEM, J., concurring):
  The Court found the Defendant's arguments regarding the insufficiency of evidence, including the lack of DNA or fingerprint evidence and the absence of testimony about the suspect's race, unpersuasive. It highlighted the requirement for a party opposing summary disposition to specifically point out errors in fact or law, which the Defendant failed to do. The Court also noted that substantial circumstantial evidence could support a guilty verdict and that the Defendant provided no authority requiring evidence of a suspect's race to support a conviction. Thus, the lack of testimony regarding the suspect's race did not demonstrate a lack of substantial evidence to support the convictions (paras 2-4).