PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of burning real property, MCL 750.73; MSA 28.268. He appeals and we affirm.
The prosecution's case consisted entirely of circumstantial evidence. The prosecutor's theory of the case was that defendant had set fire to his restaurant in order to get out of debt. Although defendant could not have received any insurance proceeds from the fire, because his indebtedness
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.