Larceny of a firearm; MCL 750.357b; Intent to steal; People v March; Sufficiency of the evidence; People v Oros; Prosecutorial error; Cross-examination; People v Evans; Criminal history; MRE 609(a); People v Snyder; Mischaracterization of testimony; People v Watson; Sentencing; Proportionality; People v Posey

The court held that 1) sufficient evidence supported defendant’s larceny-of-a-firearm conviction, 2) the prosecutor did not deny him a fair trial, and 3) his within-guidelines sentence was proportionate. Defendant entered a closed tow yard, searched vehicles, and was found in the bed of a pickup truck where the owner’s firearm had been moved from the center console. On appeal, the court first held that intent to steal the firearm was supported because defendant admitted that he entered the tow yard “with the intent to steal items for money,” was arrested with property from the truck, and an officer testified that defendant said “he planned on stealing the firearm.” Although defendant denied that intent at trial, the jury was entitled to reject his testimony, and only “minimal circumstantial evidence” was needed to prove intent. The court next rejected defendant’s prosecutorial-error claims. The prosecutor did not badger defendant by questioning why he moved the gun because the questions sought to “contradict, weaken, modify or explain” his direct testimony. The prosecutor also did not improperly use criminal-history evidence because he never mentioned defendant’s prior conviction and only asked about his claimed lack of knowledge concerning different larceny offenses. Nor did the prosecutor mischaracterize defendant’s testimony because it was reasonable to infer that he understood the gun “changed the circumstances of his crime and raised the stakes.” Finally, the court held that defendant failed to rebut the presumption of proportionality for his within-guidelines sentence, given the stolen firearm, his prior armed-robbery conviction, and his parole history. Affirmed.