People v. May

1

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIANCA JALISSA MAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 360801

Court of Appeals of Michigan

April 13, 2023

UNPUBLISHED

Macomb Circuit Court LC No. 2021-000810-FH

Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Boonstra and Riordan, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Defendant Bianca Jalissa May, appeals as of right her bench trial conviction for the illegal use of a financial transaction device in violation of MCL 750.157q. Defendant was sentenced to two years' probation. We reverse and remand for entry of a verdict of not guilty.

I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

This case arises out of the use of an electronic benefit transfer card (also known as an EBT or bridge card), or card number that was issued to Renard Dickerson. Defendant and Dickerson agreed that Dickerson allowed defendant to use the card while they were in a relationship, but they disagreed about when the relationship ended. Defendant testified that they were still in a relationship when she used the card, while Dickerson testified that their relationship had been over for months. Dickerson testified that defendant used his card without his knowledge or permission by manually entering the card number at the store checkout. However, defendant testified that Dickerson met her in person to give her the card and encouraged her to purchase candy for her children. Defendant used the card for two purchases: one for $98.65 and one for $136.61. When Dickerson tried to use the card later the same day, he discovered that his balance on the card was zero.

In the two days before the police report was filed, Dickerson testified that he called defendant to question if she used the card and defendant denied use. Dickerson testified that defendant texted his girlfriend, stating: "thanks for the food stamps, food stamp card. My kids eating good, eating steaks tonight." Dickerson also testified that after charges were filed in the present case, defendant texted Dickerson asking him if he would drop this charge if she dropped charges against him in other counties. Defendant denied sending all messages. Defendant testified that the relationship between her and Dickerson was ongoing and that he encouraged her to use the card for defendant's children. Defendant testified that there were issues in the relationship that may have contributed to Dickerson's false report.

The trial court convicted defendant based on the court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility. The trial court stated that it was clear that purchases were made with the bridge card and, regardless of whether use of the card was permitted, the amount spent significantly exceeded the amount necessary to buy candy. The trial court also believed that defendant sent the text messages that she denied sending. Convinced that defendant lied about the messages, the trial court reasoned that defendant had the propensity to lie about various other matters, including that she had permission to use Dickerson's bridge card. The trial court concluded that defendant committed the charged crimes, either by using Dickerson's bridge card without his permission, or by having Dickerson's permission to use the card, but spending more than the amount to which he consented. Specifically, the trial court stated:

[E]ven if I did believe that [defendant] did have the authorization from Mr. Dickerson to use the card to buy candy, it's clear, on the basis of this record that the use was way beyond that which was authorized. And, that's the thing that I'm absolutely sure of.

Beyond that, there are a lot of things that I would say I'm not sure of beyond a reasonable doubt.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to find her guilty of the illegal use of a financial transaction device in violation of MCL 750.157q. We agree.

This Court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. People v Meissner, 294 Mich.App. 438, 452 812 N.W.2d 37 (2011). This Court reviews the evidence "in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.

The trial court convicted defendant of illegal use of a financial transaction device in violation of MCL 750.157q, which provides:

A person who delivers, circulates, or sells a financial transaction device which was obtained or held by that person under circumstances prescribed under [MCL 750.157n, MCL 750.157p, or MCL 750.157v], or uses, permits, causes, or procures the financial transaction device to be used, delivered, circulated, or sold, knowing the device to have been obtained or held under circumstances proscribed under section 157n, 157p, or 157v is guilty of a felony.

During opening statement, the prosecutor explained that MCL 750.157n was most applicable to the instant case. MCL 750.157n, provides:

A person who steals, knowingly takes, or knowingly removes a financial transaction device from the person or possession of a deviceholder, or who knowingly retains, knowingly possesses, knowingly secretes, or knowingly uses a financial transaction device without the consent of the deviceholder, is guilty of a felony.

When reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must not interfere with the fact-finder's role in deciding the weight and credibility to give to a witness's testimony; this Court may not "determine the credibility of witnesses . . ., no matter how inconsistent or vague that testimony might be." People v Mehall, 454 Mich. 1, 6; 557 N.W.2d 110 (1997). This Court may not decide credibility because, as this Court has observed, even liars "tell[] many truths," and it is for the fact-finder to "sift the true from the false[.]" People v Miceli, 35 Mich.App. 176, 178; 192 N.W.2d 335 (1971) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences that arise from the evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of the crime. People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 757; 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999). This Court must consider all the inferences that can be fairly drawn from the evidence when considering the sufficiency of the evidence because, when evidence is relevant and admissible, "it does not matter that the evidence gives rise to multiple inferences or that an inference gives rise to further inferences." People v Hardiman, 466 Mich. 417, 428; 646 N.W.2d 158 (2002). In such cases, it is for the fact-finder alone to "determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and to determine the weight to be...