Sufficiency of the evidence; Larceny of a firearm; Identity; Circumstantial evidence; FIP firearm & ammunition; CCW; Actual possession; Felony-firearm

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s convictions for larceny of a firearm, FIP of a firearm and ammunition, CCW, and felony-firearm. Officers found him asleep in another person’s vehicle and, after arresting him, discovered a loaded Glock and two rounds of ammunition in his jacket pockets. The gun belonged to defendant’s brother-in-law R, who had not given anyone permission to take it and had not known it was missing. On appeal, defendant first argued that the prosecution did not establish that he was the person who stole the gun because others had access to R’s home. The court noted that “‘[c]ircumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime.’” R testified that the gun was in his home when he left for an extended hospital and rehabilitation stay, that defendant was present in the home while he was away, and that police found defendant with the gun shortly after R returned home. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably infer that defendant took it. His alternative theories did not require a different result because “‘if evidence is relevant and admissible, it does not matter that the evidence gives rise to multiple inferences or further inferences; it is for the jury alone to determine what inferences to draw.’” Defendant’s challenges to the possession offenses also failed. The officers testified that the gun and ammunition were removed directly from defendant’s jacket pockets, and body-camera footage corroborated their testimony. “From this evidence, the jury could find that defendant had actual possession of the firearm and ammunition.” Because sufficient evidence supported the predicate FIP convictions, his derivative challenges to the felony-firearm convictions necessarily failed. Affirmed.