
    PEOPLE v. BROWN
    1. Weapons — Criminal Law — Evidence—Carrying a Firearm with Unlawful Intent — Sufficiency.
    Police officers’ testimony that they heard a shot and shortly afterwards observed the defendant with a partially loaded pistol in his hand standing near two men who were fighting, and one of the combatant’s testimony that his opponent had told defendant to shoot him, was sufficient for the eourt, sitting without a jury, to infer criminal intent and properly find defendant guilty of carrying a firearm with unlawful intent (CL 1948, § 750.226).
    2. Appeal and Error — Nonjury Cases — Preponderance of Evidence.
    The trial eourt is the trier of facts in nonjury cases and the Court of Appeals will not reverse him unless the evidence elearly preponderates in a direction opposite to his finding of fact.
    References for Points in Headnotes
    
       56 Am Jur, Weapons & Firearms § 9 et seq.
    
    
       5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal & Error § 839 et seq.
    
    Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Samuel H. Olsen, J.
    Submitted Division 1 December 2, 1969, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 4,251.)
    Decided December 8, 1969.
    Edward L. Brown was convicted of carrying a firearm witb unlawful intent. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Gahalan, 
      Prosecuting Attorney, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Leonard Meyers, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Stuart Eubbell, for defendant on appeal.
    Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Holbrook and V. J. Brennan, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from his conviction of carrying a firearm or dangerous weapon with unlawful intent. CL 1948, § 750.226 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.423). His sole contention is that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime charged.

At trial two Detroit policemen testified that they heard a shot and ran in the direction of the report. They observed two men, Powers and Payne, fighting near a bar called the Purple Onion. Defendant was seen standing nearby the combatants with a partially loaded automatic pistol in his hand. A witness, Mr. Payne, one of the participants in the fight, stated that he heard Mr. Powers, the man with whom he was fighting, yell to someone nearby to shoot him (Payne).

Based on the facts contained in the record, it was permissible to infer criminal intent. People v. Griffin (1889), 77 Mich 585; People v. Gollman (1966), 3 Mich App 463; and People v. Dugger (1968), 14 Mich App 270. Furthermore, in cases tried without a jury the trial judge is the trier of the facts, and this Court will not reverse him unless evidence clearly preponderates in a direction opposite to his finding of fact. See People v. Doris White (1965), 2 Mich App 104; and 2 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law and Procedure (2d ed), § 630, p 815.

Affirmed.  