-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 10, 2015

v No. 319107 Oakland Circuit Court MARGO REGINA SWANN, LC No. 2012-243442-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: G LEICHER , P.J., and C AVANAGH and F ORT H OOD , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Following a bench trial, the c ircuit court convicted defendant of assault with a dangerous weapon (felonious assault), MCL 750.82(1), and malicious destru ction of property valued between $200 and $1,000, MCL 750.377a(1)(c)( i ). Defendant contends that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence that objects she employed durin g the assault were transformed into “dangerous weapons,” renderi ng her felonious assault convi ction insupportable. We disagree and therefore affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant visited the laundromat where the victim was employed because she suspected the victim was having an affair with her husband. The victim w as four or five months pregnant, informed defendant of this fact, and stated her desire not to e ngage in physical combat. Defendant was not deterred and the two women engaged in a two-m inute fray, wrestling, pulling each other’s hair, and throwing punches. After a customer pull ed the women apart, the victim went behind the counter and call ed 911. Despite knowing that p olice had been summoned, defendant began to throw objects from around the laundromat at the victim. These included magazines, detergent containers, beverages, and a small garbage bin. Defendant also threw a heavy scale used to weigh laundry and a large metal laundry car t with a tall extension pole. The victim sustained several bruis es from blocking the incoming ite ms.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Defendant’s sole challenge on appeal is that insufficient evid ence supported her use of a dangerous weapon during the assault. The court’s decision was based on its characterization of the scale and laundry cart as dangerous weapons. As these larg e, heavy, metal items were used in an attempt to cause serious inj ury to the victim, we reject defendant’s plea for appellate relief.-2- In the face of a sufficiency challenge, we apply de novo revie w and view the evidence in the “light most favorable to the prosecution to determine wheth er the trial court could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a r easonable doubt.” People v Wilkens , 267 Mich App 728, 738; 705 NW2d 728 (2005). In doing so, we must “draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support o f the [] verdict.” People v Nowack , 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000).

Pursuant to MCL 750.82(1), “a person who assaults another pers on with a gun, revolver, pistol, knife, iron bar, club, brass knuckles, or other dangerous weapon without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder is guilty” of felonious assault. (Emphasis added.) The prosecution must establish three element s to support a conviction: “(1) an assault, (2) with a dangerous weapon , and (3) with the intent to injure or place the victim in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery.” People v Nix , 301 Mich App 195, 205; 836 NW2d 224 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted, emphasis added).

That a laundry cart and scale are not generally used as weapon s does not preclude defendant’s conviction of felonious assault. It has long been established that commonplace, seemingly innocuous items can be dangerous weapons when used “a gainst another in furtherance of an assault” and employed in a manner “capable of inflicting serious injury.” People v Goolsby , 284 Mich 375, 378; 279 NW 867 ( 1938). “Whether an object is a dangerous weapon depends upon the object itself and how it is use[d].” People v Barkley , 151 Mich App 234, 238; 390 NW2d 705 (1986). For example, “[a] screwdriver used as a k nife would fall into this category.” Id. Ultimately, it is a question of fact whether an item is a dan gerous weapon under the unique circumstances of any particular case. People v McCadney , 111 Mich App 545, 550; 315 NW2d 175 (1981).

Here, defendant launched a heavy metal scale and a large metal cart at the victim. Such items flung through the air with the purpose of striking anothe r are “capable of inflicting serious injury.” Defendant’s attempt to recharacterize as benign her u se of these objects is futile. So too are defendant’s efforts to rewrite Goolsby as requiring the use of the object in a way likely to cause serious injury. The circuit court heard the victim’s tes timony and reviewed security footage of the assault. From this evidence, the court could co nclude that defendant assaulted the victim with two dangerous weapons with the intent to injure the victim. We discern no error in the court’s conviction fo llowing the bench trial.

We affirm.

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh /s/ Karen M. Fort Hood