Sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction of AWIGBH; People v Blevins; Intent; Mutually exclusive offenses; People v Davis (Davis I & II); People v McKewen

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s AWIGBH conviction, and that the trial court did not err by also convicting her of felonious assault. Her convictions arose out an altercation with the victim (F) in which she struck F, and a tree, with her vehicle. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the AWIGBH conviction. “The testimony regarding the damage to the tree and defendant’s truck, along with the debris from the truck scattered around the tree, support the trial court’s conclusion that defendant was traveling at a high rate of speed when she struck the tree and” F. That defendant “was driving fast was evidenced by [F’s] need to run to reach the safety of the tree, barely reaching the tree before being struck by defendant’s truck.” In addition, the “damage to defendant’s truck was so great that when she drove toward [F] the second time, the damage prevented her from reaching” F. And there was “no evidence that defendant attempted to brake or swerve before hitting [F] and the tree, also indicating that defendant intended to cause great bodily harm to” F. It concluded that “a rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to inflict great bodily harm on” F. The court also rejected defendant’s claim that the trial court erred by convicting her of both charges because the offenses are mutually exclusive. “Relying on Davis I and McKewen, defendant argues that her felonious assault conviction should be vacated because the convictions were contradictory and mutually exclusive. Under Davis II, however, convictions for AWIGBH and felonious assault are not mutually exclusive.” In convicting defendant of AWIGBH, the trial court found she acted with the intent to cause F great bodily harm less than murder. “Convicting defendant of felonious assault, however, did not require an express finding that [she] acted without the intent to cause [F] great bodily harm. In fact, when making its findings in support of defendant’s felonious assault conviction, the trial court found that defendant acted with the intent to scare and harm” F. Affirmed.