Background
Police responded to a neighborhood dispute involving Steven Michael Brooks and his sister, Rebecca Brooks. An officer testified that Brooks became highly agitated and shoved Rebecca with both hands. Brooks and Rebecca instead testified that he tried to hug her and that she pushed him away while telling him not to touch her.
As officers approached, Brooks entered his vehicle, accelerated backward out of a driveway, reversed down the street, turned around, and drove away. An officer yelled for him to stop, and the officers pursued with their patrol vehicle’s emergency lights and siren activated. Following a bench trial, Brooks was convicted of third-degree fleeing and eluding and domestic violence. He appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support either conviction.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the third-degree fleeing-and-eluding conviction. The dashcam video and testimony permitted a rational factfinder to conclude that Brooks was driving when an officer commanded him to stop, that he was aware of the command through the verbal order and the patrol vehicle’s lights and siren, and that he took affirmative action to flee by accelerating backward, driving away, and continuing despite the pursuit.
The court also affirmed 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 reaction permitted a rational factfinder to conclude that she apprehended an immediate offensive touching. Viewed in the prosecution’s favor, the evidence was therefore sufficient to establish an assault or assault and battery.
Key Takeaways
- A fleeing-and-eluding conviction may rest on a stop command communicated through emergency lights or a siren, even when the defendant disputes hearing an earlier verbal command.
- Driving away and continuing after police signal a stop can support an inference of affirmative intent to flee without proof that the driver exceeded the speed limit.
- Conflicting witness accounts do not render evidence insufficient when the factfinder could reasonably credit the prosecution’s witnesses.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deferential standard governing sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges after a bench trial. Appellate courts view the record in the prosecution’s favor and generally leave witness credibility and competing factual interpretations to the trial court.
It also confirms that domestic violence under Michigan law may be established by either an offensive touching or conduct causing reasonable apprehension of an immediate offensive touching.