-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 26, 2016

v No. 324804 Oakland Circuit Court KELLI RENEE HYDE, LC No. 2013-247952-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: R ONAYNE K RAUSE , P.J., and S AWYER and S TEPHENS , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant appeals as of right from her convictions following a jury trial of unlawful imprisonment, MCL 750.349b, and assault with a deadly weapon (f elonious assault), MCL 750.82. 1 The trial court and sentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms of 6 to 15 years for unlawful imprisonment, and 36 months to 4 years for felonious a ssault. We affirm. 2

The crimes at issue in this matter involve defendant, defendan t’s two sisters (codefendant Tamara Stephens, who appeals separately, and Anika Garnes, who pleaded guilty and whose application for leave was previously denied), defendant’s mothe r (Theola Garnes, who also appeals separately), and their apparent belief that the victim stole two rings from defendant. Defendant took the occasion of the victim’s visit to defendant’ s mother’s house, where defendant was living, to invite the victim i nto her bedroom and ask her a bout the rings. The victim testified that defendant and Stephens accompanied her to defendant’s bedr oom where they accused her of stealing the rings. The victim te stified that when she denied taking the rings, defendant began to beat her with her fists while Stephens repeatedly struck her wi th a bat. The victim testified that Stephens also sodomized her with the bat. According to the vic tim, in order to stop the assault, she lied and told the women that she had stolen and pawned the rings and that the pawn ticket and money were in her purse. W hen neither a pawn ticket nor mo ney was found in the purse, the beating resumed.

1 She was acquitted of one count each of first-degree criminal s exual conduct, MCL 750.520b, and larceny from a person. MCL 750.357.

2 This appeal is submitted with the appeals in Docket Nos. 32403 5 and 324802.-2- Defendant argues that her conviction for felonious assault sho uld be reversed because it is undisputed that she did not h it the victim with the bat, and the evidence, taken as a whole, does not establish that she aided and abetted Stephens in committing felonious assault. We review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence de novo, considering the evidence presented at trial in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine “whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential element s of the crime were proved beyo nd a reasonable doubt.” People v Ericksen , 288 Mich App 192, 195-196; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). We resolve “ all conflicts in the evidence . . . in favor of the prosecution,” People v Kanaan , 278 Mich App 594, 619; 751 NW2d 57 (2008), and “defer to the fact -finder’s role in determining the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses,” People v Bennet , 290 Mich App 465, 472; 802 NW2d 627 (2010).

Conviction of felonious assault under an aiding and abetting theory requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of t he following:

(1) the crime charged was committed by the defendant or some ot her person; (2) the defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assiste d the commission of the crime; and (3) the defendant intended the commission of the crime or had knowledge that the principal intended its commission at the tim e that [the defendant] gave aid and encouragement. [ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).]

“Aiding and abetting” describes all forms of assistance rendere d to the perpetrator of a crime and includes all words or deeds that support, encourage or incite t he commission of a crime. People v Moore , 470 Mich 56, 63; 679 NW2d 41 (2004).

The evidence showed that defe ndant and Stephens were involved in a common enterprise. One witness to the f elonious assault testified tha t defendant held the victim by the hair or in a chokehold while Stephens was hitting her. This wi tness speculated that defendant did not hold the victim so Stephens could hit her with the bat, and defendant insisted that she did not ask Stephens to help or tell her to get the bat or encourag e her to hit the victim with it. However, it was within the province of the jury to reject the e xculpating testimony on defendant’s intentions and reasona bly infer from the evidence t hat defendant forcibly restrained the victim so that she could not escape from being beaten with the bat. The jury could also reasonably infer that defendant’s actions constituted incitemen t to her sister to resume hitting the victim with the bat.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and def erring to the jury’s credibility determinations, Ericksen , 288 Mich App at 197, the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant aided and abette d the commission of felonious as sault.

Affirmed.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause /s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens