-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 16, 2017

v Nos. 331864; 331865
Washtenaw Circuit Court JAMES TYRON CAMERON MILLER, LC Nos. 14-000199-FH
15-000174-FH Defendant-Appellant.

Before: G ADOLA , P.J., and J ANSEN and S AAD , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

In these consolidated cases, de fendant appeals his convictions following a jury trial of domestic assault, MCL 750.81(4) (Docket No. 331864), and witnes s interference, MCL 750.122(7)(a) (Docket No. 331865). Because there is sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions, we affirm.

I. BASIC FACTS

This case arises out of an enc ounter between defendant and the victim, who had been in a dating relationship and were living together at the time of the incident. The two came into conflict over a photograph defendant found on the victim’s cell ular phone. The victim left the home during the fight but returne d the next day at defendant’s request to discuss the matter. Soon after she returned, defendant forced her into the bedroom and said that “if [she] was going to sleep with other men, [she] w as going to sleep with him that day.” When she refused, he straddled her on the bed and choked her with one hand and slapp ed her with the other hand. The victim was able to push defendant off and leave the house. Def endant moved out of the house.

Sometime later, the victim allowed defendant to return to the house to get his belongings. While there, defendant told the victim she “needed to fix the s ituation.” He forced her to write a letter that explained that she took responsibility for the inci dent and that she did not want to press charges. Feeling threatened, s he did so. Defendant took the l etter with him when he left.

II. SUFFICIENCY O F THE EVIDENCE

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW-2- Defendant argues that his convictions are not supported by suf ficient evidence adduced at trial. We review this argument de novo, People v Meissner , 294 Mich App 438, 452; 812 NW2d 37 (2011), and view “the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if it would support a” reasonable jury’s finding that the prosecution proved the elements of the charged crime(s) beyond a reasonable doubt, People v Cameron , 291 Mich App 599, 613; 806 NW2d 371 (2011). We “must ‘draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict.’ ” Id. , quoting People v Nowack , 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000).

B. DOMESTIC ASSAULT (DOCKET NO. 331864)

MCL 750.81(2) defines domestic a ssault as assault or assault a nd battery on “an individual with whom [the offender] has or has had a dating rel ationship . . . or a resident or
former resident of his or her household.” Assault is “ ‘an att empt to commit a battery or an unlawful act that places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery.’ ”

Meissner , 294 Mich App at 453-454, quoting People v Starks , 473 Mich 227, 234; 701 NW2d 136 (2005). “ ‘A battery is an i ntentional, unconsented and ha rmful or offensive touching of the person of another . . . .’ ” Id. at 454, quoting People v Reeves , 458 Mich 236, 240 n 4; 580 NW2d 433 (1998).

The victim testified that defendant straddled her on the bed i n such a way that she could not move and then choked her for 25 to 30 seconds and slapped h er face with his open hand. There is some confusion in the victim’s testimony about the sta tus of her relationship with defendant at the time. She initially testified that she and de fendant were dating at the time of the incident but later explained that the dating relationship was o ver by the evening of the assault and the two were only cohabiting. This discrepancy is of no co nsequence, however, because the victim’s and defendant’s former dating relationship and their s hared residence before and at the time of the assault meet the domestic relationship element. Se e MCL 750.81(2); Cameron , 291 Mich App at 601 (concluding that e vidence the defendant pushed and punched his ex-girlfriend was sufficient to support the domestic assault conviction).

Although defendant concedes that the victim testified that she was assaulted, he nevertheless claims that this testimony is insufficient because other evidence indicates that the assault did not happen. We reject defendant’s attacks on the r eliability of the evidence and the victim’s credibility. Questions about the weight of the eviden ce and the credibility of witnesses belong to the jury and will be accorded deference on appeal. Cameron , 291 Mich App at 616. Simply put, the victim’s testimony was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt
that defendant committed the crime of domestic violence.

C. WITNESS INTERFERENCE (DOCKET NO. 331865)

MCL 750.122(6) punishes an “attempt to willfully impede, inter fere with, prevent, or obstruct the ability of a witness to” testify at an “official p roceeding.” To prove that defendant violated this section, the pros ecution must show that defendant

(1) committed or attempted to commit (2) an act that did not co nsist of bribery, threats or intimidation, or retal iation as defined in MCL 750.1 22 and applicable-3- case law, (3) but was any act or attempt that was done willfull y (4) to impede, interfere with, prevent, or obstruct (5) a witness’s ability (6 ) to attend, testify, or provide information in or for a present or future official proc eeding (7) having the knowledge or the reason to know that the person subjected to th e interference could be a witness at any official proceeding. [ People v Greene , 255 Mich App 426, 442-443; 661 NW2d 616 (2003).]

Indeed, the statute prohibits “tampering conduct, no matter how it is described, including in degrees of success.” Id . at 439-440.

The victim testified that when defendant called her at work af ter the incident, he asked her to drop the charges and not to go to court. Defendant late r told her in person that she “needed to fix the situation and . . . needed to make it right” because he was worried that he would not be able to work again. She wrote a letter that purpo rted to diminish defendant’s role in the assault at defendant’s urging because he “said he would be hard to get rid of,” a statement that she understood to be a threat. The clear import of the le tter was to diminish the victim’s willingness to testify at trial. Importantly, this type of con duct goes well beyond merely asking a victim or potential witness to not testify. See id. at 447 (“We do not hold that a request, alone, not to attend a hearing . . . would be unlawful . . . .”). Acc ordingly, there is sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction be cause forcing the victim to wr ite the letter is the type of tampering conduct covered in MCL 750.122(6).

And defendant’s argument that he did not threaten or intimidat e the victim is irrelevant because the statutory subsection at issue is distinct from the one that criminalizes the use of threats or intimidation to tamper with a witness. See MCL 750. 122(3) and (6); Greene , 255 Mich App at 438 (stating that the various subsections of the st atute provide for “four different categories of witness tampering”: bribery, threats or intimida tion, interference, and retaliation).

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael F. Gadola
/s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Henry William Saad