Sufficiency of the evidence; Unlawfully driving away an automobile; MCL 750.413; People v. Hendricks; Spectrum Health Hosps. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Life Ins.; People v. Hayward; People v. Sabin (After Remand)

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of unlawfully driving away an automobile (UDAA), the court affirmed. His conviction was based on evidence that his girlfriend, B, revoked permission for him to drive her car. The prosecution did not dispute that defendant traditionally had permission to drive the vehicle at will and was not required to ask  B or her son, R, first. However, the prosecution asserted that B and R revoked that permission before defendant drove away the vehicle on this occasion. Both B and R testified that they told defendant he could not take the vehicle and that he drove the vehicle away anyway. The jury found this testimony credible and the court may not interfere with that judgment. Defendant contended that B “unenthusiastically told Defendant not to take the car when he left,” implying that B did not truly intend to revoke her permission. Even if that were true, R also revoked defendant’s permission to drive the car. As the car’s owner, R had authority to deny defendant’s use. Defendant further asserted that “permission was revoked only after he took the car and that this was insufficient to support his conviction for UDAA as provided in” Hayward. As evidence of this point, he noted that B and R delayed in contacting the police. Defendant theorized that the delay showed that R’s “attitude changed and he ultimately became firm in his desire to have the car returned.” Although the evidence was certainly probative, it was not dispositive. Moreover, both B and R testified that they revoked their permission before defendant drove away. The jury accepted the testimony as true and the court may not interfere with that judgment.