Court Opinion

ID: 9593940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:25:47.816219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:44.331433
License: Public Domain

Sawyer, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Defendant argues that his conviction should be vacated because the prosecution failed to establish that defendant was lawfully imprisoned at the time of the assault. One element of assault on a prison employee is that the defendant be
[a] person lawfully imprisoned in a jail, other place of confinement established by law for any term, or lawfully imprisoned for any purpose at any other place ... for a crime or offense, or charged with a crime or offense . . . without being discharged from the place of confinement, or other lawful imprisonment by due process of law . . . .” [MCL 750.197c; MSA 28.394(3).]
Defendant argues that, while it was proved that he was imprisoned at the time of the assault, it was not proved that his imprisonment was lawful.
Appellate courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine *240whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508; 489 NW2d 748 (1992). Furthermore, the elements may be proved by reasonable inferences arising from the evidence. People v Wolford, 189 Mich App 478, 480; 473 NW2d 767 (1991).
In the case at bar, I am satisfied that a rational trier of fact could conclude that defendant was lawfully imprisoned on the basis of the fact of his imprisonment and that none of the evidence suggested that the imprisonment was unlawful. Cf. People v Williams, 173 Mich App 312; 433 NW2d 356 (1988). While unlawful incarceration may occur, it is certainly a rare occurrence. In the absence of any suggestion to the contrary, a rational trier of fact could reasonably infer that an incarceration is lawful.
I would affirm.