Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People of Michigan v. Lanisha Sharita Williams

Michigan Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 371557
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Disposition: Lower Court Judgment/Order Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (102)

• PDF

Disposition

Lower Court Judgment/Order Affirmed

Lead Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED
March 09, 2026
Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:00 PM

v No. 371557
Wayne Circuit Court
LANISHA SHARITA WILLIAMS, LC No. 22-000790-03-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: MALDONADO, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and TREBILCOCK , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Lanisha Williams, appeals as of right her jury trial convictions of kidnapping,
MCL 750.349, extortion, MCL 750.213, and unlawful imprisonment, MCL 750.349b. We affirm
for the reasons stated in this opinion.

I. BASIC FACTS

In November 2021, KB, who was 15 years of age, met 16-year-old ZG via social media.
The two made plans to meet and have sex. Consummating that plan, KB went to ZG’s house on
November 20, 2021, and they had sex together. Thereafter, Williams walked into the room. She
yelled and, armed with a fan, began to attack. KB was struck and fled the house, leaving behind
several items of personal property, including his Air Pods, house key, a hoodie, and a pair of
expensive shoes. KB texted ZG in an attempt to get his property back, but someone messaged
back that he was “fuckin’ with” his life, that “she don’t fucking exist,” that he should “[l]ose her
number,” that he was not getting his “shit back,” and to “get over it.” He left after realizing that
he was not going to see the return of his possessions.

The next morning, KB messaged ZG via social media to ask if she was “okay.” She stated
that she was but asked why he had stolen her “dad’s gun.” KB stated that he was confused because
he had not taken anything, so he sent a message with two question marks. A few hours later, he
received some text messages from ZG’s phone, including a photograph of his personal property.
KB identified a foot that appeared in the photograph as belonging to Williams. KB arranged via
text messages to return to ZG’s house to retrieve his belongings. He was told via text that it was
not a set up, but, because he was suspicious, he decided to share his location with a friend.

-1-
At some point before 5:00 p.m., another one of KB’s friends drove him to ZG’s house.
When they arrived in front of the house, two trucks pulled behind his friend’s car so that it could
not move backward. A man, whom KB learned was codefendant Anthony Tyler, came out from
behind the bushes holding a gun. Tyler came up to the car, put a gun to KB’s friend’s head, and
demanded that KB and his friend exit the vehicle. They complied. Several armed men came out
of the trucks, and Tyler instructed KB to go into the house. KB tried to run away, but he stopped
when one of the men threatened to shoot him if he did not stop. KB then entered the house at
gunpoint. His friend was allowed to leave.

Inside the house, Tyler accused KB of stealing jewelry and guns. KB denied the
accusations. Tyler struck KB in the head with the “butt” of his gun, causing him to bleed profusely.
He also answered a call from KB’s brother. During the call, Tyler stated that KB had stolen guns
and jewelry and explained that he needed $1,100 for the items. In a later call with KB’s brother
and mother, the demand for payment was increased to $2,000. KB’s mother made multiple calls
to Tyler begging him not to hurt her son and promising to pay the money. During some of the
calls, Williams made comments to KB’s mother, indicating that KB was stupid, had come over to
have sex with ZG, and was now going to “get fucked up over some pussy.” She laughed and
questioned whether it was “worth it” for him to come “over here trying to keep his dick wet.” At
some point, Tyler instructed codefendant Deshawn “Boogie” Robinson and other men who were
present to “drill” KB. Robinson dragged KB to the basement, where he was viciously beaten by
Robinson and the other men until he lost consciousness.

Eventually, KB’s mother was able to obtain assistance from the police, who advised her to
set up a meeting with Tyler to pay the $2,000 ransom. After the meeting was set up, Williams
grabbed KB’s phone, obtained the unlock code from him, and did something on his phone. He
discovered later that some text messages had been deleted. In the meantime, police officers
approached the house and observed Tyler and Robinson on the porch. Robinson went back inside,
but Tyler admitted that KB was in his house. A police officer ordered Tyler to release KB, and
Tyler complied with that order. KB walked out of the house and was transported to a hospital via
ambulance.

Tyler was detained. Williams and ZG were also placed in a police car. Inside the car,
Williams asked, “How can they charge us with kidnapping when this nigga broke into my house?
Because we didn’t let him leave? Because we wanted to call his momma and get our belongings
back?” During a later police interrogation, Williams stated that “we’re here for the little boy that
broke into my house.” She claimed that he had stolen approximately $3,000 worth of jewelry from
her. She also stated:

After we called [KB’s brother], and [who] was being disrespectful, we were trying
to get his mama. All we wanted was his mother to come and pick him up. It wasn’t
like no hostage situation or none of that. We want you to come get your son so we
can get our things back that your son stole.

Williams, Robinson, and Tyler were all charged in connection with the incident. As
indicated above, Williams was convicted of kidnapping, extortion, and unlawful imprisonment.
She appeals now as of right.

-2-
II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Williams argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions of
kidnapping, extortion, and unlawful imprisonment under a theory of aiding and abetting. “This
Court reviews de novo a defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his or
her conviction.” People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 57; 862 NW2d 446 (2014). “In determining
whether sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction, this Court reviews the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, and considers whether there was sufficient evidence to
justify a rational trier of fact in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Harris, 495
Mich 120, 126; 845 NW2d 477 (2014). “The standard of review is deferential: a reviewing court
is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury
verdict.” People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000). “Circumstantial evidence
and reasonable inferences arising therefrom may constitute proof of the elements of a crime, and
it does not matter that the evidence gives rise to multiple inferences or that an inference gives rise
to further inferences.” People v Walker, 330 Mich App 378, 382; 948 NW2d 122 (2019) (quotation
marks, brackets, and citations omitted).

B. ANALYSIS

As relevant in this case, “[a] person” is guilty of kidnapping “if he or she knowingly
restrains another person with the intent of” holding that person “for ransom or reward.” MCL
750.349(1)(a). See also People v Anderson, 331 Mich App 552, 562; 953 NW2d 451 (2020).
“Restrain” is statutorily defined as:

to restrict a person’s movements or to confine the person so as to interfere with that
person’s liberty without that person’s consent or without legal authority. The
restraint does not have to exist for any particular length of time and may be related
or incidental to the commission of other criminal acts. [MCL 750.349(2).]

Further, in order to convict a defendant as an aider and abettor,1 the prosecution must prove:

(1) the crime charged was committed by the defendant or some other person; (2)
the defendant performed acts or gave encouragement that assisted the commission
of the crime; and (3) the defendant intended the commission of the crime or had
knowledge that the principal intended its commission at the time that [the
defendant] gave aid and encouragement. [People v Robinson, 475 Mich 1, 6; 715
NW2d 44 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original).]

“Aiding and abetting describes all forms of assistance rendered to the perpetrator of a crime and
comprehends all words or deeds that might support, encourage, or incite the commission of a
crime . . . .” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) (quotation marks and

1
Under MCL 767.39, a person who aids or abets the commission of a crime may be convicted and
punished as if that person directly committed the offense.

-3-
citation omitted). “Mere presence, even with knowledge that an offense is about to be committed
or is being committed, is insufficient to establish that a defendant aided or assisted in the
commission of the crime.” People v Norris, 236 Mich App 411, 419-420; 600 NW2d 658 (1999).
“The quantum of aid or advice is immaterial as long as it had the effect of inducing the crime.”
People v Lawton, 196 Mich App 341, 352; 492 NW2d 810 (1992). “An aider and abettor’s state
of mind may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances. Factors that may be considered
include a close association between the defendant and the principal, the defendant’s participation
in the planning or execution of the crime, and evidence of flight after the crime.” Carines, 460
Mich at 758.

In this case, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to demonstrate that Williams
was guilty of kidnapping under an aiding-and-abetting theory. First, the prosecution established
that a kidnapping was committed. Robinson, 475 Mich at 6. Tyler restrained KB’s movements
by force and threat of force without KB’s consent or any legal authority. Tyler’s intent to hold
KB for ransom can be inferred based upon his demand that KB’s mother give him $2,000 to secure
KB’s release.

The prosecution also presented sufficient evidence to establish that Williams performed
acts or gave encouragement that assisted in the commission of the kidnapping. Id. Williams argues
that she was merely present at the house. However, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury
verdict, her actions “had the effect of inducing the crime.” Lawton, 196 Mich App at 352. The
jury could infer that she sent text messages to KB to entice him to come to the house to retrieve
his possessions.2 Moreover, in a phone call with KB’s mother, Williams stated, “we got his dumb
ass back over here.” The jury could infer that this was an admission that Williams assisted in the
commission of the kidnapping because it shows that her actions intentionally led to KB’s presence
outside the house where his freedom and movement were initially restrained and that she was
aware of the effects of her actions. Additionally, words can “support, encourage, or incite the
commission of a crime . . . .” Carines, 460 Mich at 757. Williams assisted and encouraged the
kidnapping when she made accusations about KB during the phone conversation with KB’s
mother. These accusations served to support the kidnapping as they provided additional pressure
on KB’s mother to pay the ransom.

Lastly, there is sufficient evidence that Williams intended the commission of the
kidnapping or had knowledge that Tyler intended its commission at the time that Williams
provided him with aid and encouragement. See Robinson, 475 Mich at 6. In the police car,
Williams questioned why she was arrested by asking, “[b]ecause we didn’t let him leave? Because
we wanted to call his momma and get our belongings back?” Similarly, in the interrogation, she
explained why she and Tyler had contacted KB’s mother, “[w]e want you to come get your son so
we can get our things back that your son stole.” Williams’s statements show that she not only was

2
On appeal, Williams challenges what inferences could be drawn from the photograph of KB’s
belongings because, in another message attributed to her, it was stated that KB would not be getting
his belongings back. However, this challenge is related to the weight and credibility of the
evidence and, thus, was an issue properly left for the jury to resolve. See People v Kenny, 332
Mich App 394, 402-403; 956 NW2d 562 (2020).

-4-
an enthusiastic participant in restraining KB, but also that she likewise wanted to restrict KB’s
freedom and movement until she got her belongings back. This satisfies the requirement that
“defendant intended the commission of the crime . . . .” See id.

Accordingly, drawing all reasonable inferences and making credibility choices in support
of the jury verdict, there was sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact in finding Williams
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of kidnapping under the theory of aiding and abetting.

Williams next argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction of
extortion, under a theory of aiding and abetting. “[T]he crime of extortion is complete when a
defendant (1) either orally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens (2) to
accuse another of any crime or offense, or to injure the person or property or mother, father, spouse
or child of another (3) with the intent to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatever, or
with the intent to compel the person threatened to do or refrain from doing any act against his or
her will.” Harris, 495 Mich at 128-129. Here, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to
establish that the crime of extortion was committed. Tyler demanded payment in exchange for
KB’s safe return to his family members. In doing so, Tyler “orally . . . maliciously threaten[ed]
an[] injury to” KB, “with intent thereby to extort money” from KB’s mother. MCL 750.213. Thus,
the first element required for a conviction of extortion on an aiding and abetting theory is satisfied.
See Robinson, 475 Mich at 6.

Next, the prosecution presented evidence establishing that Williams performed acts that
assisted in the commission of the extortion. Id. This assistance came in the form of helping get
KB to the house, as described above. Also, Williams participated in the phone calls where Tyler
demanded payment and threatened KB. Speaking about KB, Williams stated, “[n]ow he going to
get fucked up over some pussy.” This statement could reasonably be understood as
communicating a threat to KB’s safety.

With respect to the third prong, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that Williams intended the commission of extortion. See id. Williams was present
when Tyler threatened and harmed KB. Her statements in the police car and interrogation
demonstrate that she wanted KB’s mother to be fearful for KB’s safety so that she could get her
“belongings back.”

In sum, there was sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact in finding Williams
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of extortion under the theory of aiding and abetting. Harris, 495
Mich at 126.

Lastly, Williams argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction of
unlawful imprisonment, again under the theory of aiding and abetting. “[T]o be guilty of unlawful
imprisonment under MCL 750.349b(1)(b), (1) a defendant must knowingly restrain a person, and
(2) the restrained person must be ‘secretly confined.’ ” People v Railer, 288 Mich App 213, 217;
792 NW2d 776 (2010). As discussed above related to the kidnapping conviction, restrain “means
to forcibly restrict a person’s movements or to forcibly confine the person so as to interfere with
that person’s liberty without that person’s consent or without lawful authority.” MCL
750.349b(3)(a). Secretly confined means either “[t]o keep the confinement of the restrained person
a secret,” or “[t]o keep the location of the restrained person a secret.” MCL 750.349b(3)(b).

-5-
The prosecution presented evidence that unlawful imprisonment was committed, which is
the first requirement for a conviction of unlawful imprisonment under an aiding and abetting
theory. See Robinson, 475 Mich at 6. Tyler used a gun to restrain KB. Though Tyler spoke with
KB’s mother several times, he kept KB’s location a secret. Indeed, it was only because KB had
shared his location with a friend that he was able to be located. Next, there was evidence of
Williams’s participation in the unlawful imprisonment. Id. Her role was to get KB to the house
by sending text messages that promised the return of his possessions and assured him that it was
not a set up. In a statement on the phone call with KB’s mother, Williams boasted that “we got
his dumb ass back over here.” Williams’s statement demonstrates that she assisted Tyler in
restraining KB by luring him to the house. Lastly, there was sufficient evidence to establish that
defendant intended the commission of the unlawful imprisonment. Id. Williams’s statement in
the police car allows the jury to infer her state of mind. Specifically, based upon her question as
to why she should be charged with kidnapping for refusing to let him leave when all they wanted
was to “call his momma and get our belongings back,” the jury could infer that Williams was
aware that KB was being restrained, that she was involved in restraining him, and that she wanted
him to be restrained.

Based upon the foregoing, there was sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact in
finding Williams guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of unlawful imprisonment under the theory of
aiding and abetting.

Affirmed.

/s/ Allie Greenleaf Maldonado
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Christopher M. Trebilcock

-6-