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 offered a different account, testifying that he attempted to hug her and that she pushed him away.
As officers approached Brooks, he entered his vehicle and accelerated backward out of a driveway after an officer yelled for him to stop. Brooks reversed down the street, turned around, and continued driving while officers pursued with emergency lights and a siren. 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 Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. On fleeing and eluding, the court held that a rational factfinder could conclude Brooks was driving when he received commands to stop, knew that officers had ordered him to stop, and intentionally took affirmative action to flee or avoid capture. The dashcam video and officer testimony showed that Brooks accelerated backward after a verbal command, drove away despite the patrol car’s lights and siren, and appeared not to stop completely at a stop sign.
The court also held that sufficient evidence supported 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 tried to hug her, Rebecca’s forceful rejection could support a finding that she apprehended an immediate offensive touching. Conflicting testimony and witness credibility were matters for the trial court as factfinder.
Key Takeaways
- A fleeing-and-eluding conviction requires affirmative conduct intended to flee or avoid capture, not merely a failure to submit.
- Commands conveyed through emergency lights or a siren can independently establish an order to stop, even when receipt of an earlier verbal command is disputed.
- In a sufficiency challenge after a bench trial, the appellate court draws reasonable inferences and resolves credibility choices in support of the verdict.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial deference appellate courts give trial-level credibility findings and reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence. Video evidence, officer testimony, and a defendant’s driving conduct may collectively prove knowledge and intent even without evidence that the defendant exceeded the speed limit.
It also confirms that Michigan’s domestic-violence statute encompasses both an actual offensive touching and conduct causing reasonable apprehension of an immediate offensive touching.