Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gordon LaBELLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of malicious destruction of a building with the damages exceeding $100, M.C.L. § 750.380; M.S.A. § 28.612. Defendant was subsequently adjudicated to be an habitual offender, fourth offense, M.C.L. § 769.12; M.S.A. § 28.1084, and was sentenced to five to fifteen years' imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that evidence of the labor costs incurred in repairing the damage to the building was improperly admitted for the purpose of showing the amount of damage to the building. We disagree. This Court has held, in cases involving the malicious destruction of personalty with the damage exceeding $100,1 that the amount of the damage caused by the defendant may be established by showing either the difference in the property's fair market value or the reasonable cost to repair or restore the property. People v. Hamblin, 224 Mich.App. 87, 96, 568 N.W.2d 339 (1997). The cost of labor is an essential part of the cost of repair. Id. at 100, 568 N.W.2d 339. Although Hamblin concerned the malicious destruction of personalty, the analysis employed in Hamblin is equally applicable in this case. Indeed, the sole distinction between the statute prohibiting the malicious destruction of personalty with the damage exceeding $100 and the statute prohibiting the malicious destruction of a building with the damage exceeding $100 is the language describing the damaged property.2 Accordingly, we conclude that the prosecutor properly presented evidence of the reasonable cost of repair to the building to show the amount of damage caused by the defendant.
Defendant also argues that his wearing of ankle shackles at trial denied him his right to a fair trial. However, there is no evidence in the lower court record to support defendant's assertion that he was in fact shackled. Consequently, this Court declines to review this issue.
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. M.C.L. § 750.377a; M.S.A. § 28.609(1).
2. M.C.L. § 750.377a; M.S.A. § 28.609(1) states in pertinent part:Any person who shall wilfully and maliciously destroy or injure the personal property of another ․ if the damage resulting from such injury shall exceed $100.00, shall be guilty of a felony.M.C.L. § 750.380; M.S.A. § 28.612 states in pertinent part:Any person who shall wilfully and maliciously destroy ․ any house, barn, or other building of another ․ if the damage resulting from such injury shall exceed $100.00, shall be guilty of a felony.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Docket No. 200253.
Decided: July 31, 1998
Court: Court of Appeals of Michigan.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)