(An unpublished opinion is not binding as precedent but may have persuasive value in court.)

People v. Ramsey

The defendant was found guilty by a jury for Failure to Stop at the Scene of an Accident Resulting in Serious Impairment of a Body Function, Failure to Stop at the Scene an Accident Resulting in Death, Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) Causing Serious Impairment of a Body Function, and OWI Causing Death. One victim died and another was seriously injured.

All of the defendant’s challenges related to a preliminary breath test (PBT) taken immediately after the crash. The defendant first challenged the prosecutor’s questioning of a deputy involved, where the prosecutor asked if he attached any reports to his request for charges after the defendant was arrested. The court rejected this challenge because the prosecutor’s remarks amounted to a fair response to defense counsel’s criticism of the prosecutor’s office during his opening remarks. Additionally, it should be noted that while the trial court had previously prohibited the prosecutor from introducing evidence of the PBT results, it had not prohibited him from introducing evidence that a PBT had been taken. The defendant’s convictions were affirmed. People v. Ramsey, case no. 273446, released March 13, 2008.

People v. Touchette

The defendant contended that because the officer did not observe him violate any traffic law, there was no reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. The Informant advised the officer that the defendant and two other individuals had been drinking heavily at the bar.

However, the informant did not advise the officer when the individuals started or stopped drinking nor did he tell the officer that the individuals were intoxicated. It should be noted that the informant did provide the officer with a description of the defendant’s vehicle, a statement regarding the number of passengers, and a description of the direction in which the vehicle would be traveling. The officer confirmed this information moments later when he observed the defendant driving his vehicle.

Subsequently, the defendant was charged with Operating While Intoxicated-Second Offense. The district court granted the defendant’s Motion to Suppress. The circuit court reversed the District Court’s decision

The court noted that reasonable suspicion is a standard lower than probable cause. The court concluded a reasonable suspicion was established, which justified the investigative stop.

The court affirmed the circuit court decision. People v. Touchette, case no. 279214, released March 13, 2008.

People v. Westcott

The trial court did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights when it exceeded the guidelines’ minimum sentence recommendation.

More specifically, in 2006, the 20 year old defendant crashed his sister’s car. His BAC registered .17. He was convicted of OWI-Third Offense.

At the time of the defendant’s sentencing, it was revealed the defendant had an extensive criminal history. He was unsuccessfully discharged from probation on prior drunk driving offenses. While the case was pending, he was picked up for MIP.

The guidelines recommended a minimum sentence range of 0 to 17 months. The trial court sentenced the defendant to two to five years in prison. The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court’s reasons on the record for the departure were objective and verifiable. At age 20, the defendant already had a history of alcohol-related convictions, and the punishments imposed did not deter him. The facts and circumstances of the case showed he continued to be a danger to the community.

The Court of Appeals held the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The case was affirmed. People v. Westcott, case no. 274677, released January 31, 2008.

People v. Rinke

Since the record was not clear how the trial court resolved the defendant’s challenge to the information in the Pre-Sentence Investigative Report (PSIR) following his convictions of OWI-Third Offense and Operating a Vehicle With a Suspended License-Second Offense, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for clarification the scoring of the PSIR.

The defendant was convicted. His PSIR indicated in 1973, the defendant was convicted of Carrying a Concealed Weapon (CCW). The PSIR also detailed 6 prior felony convictions and 17 prior misdemeanor convictions. At sentencing, the defendant objected to the CCW conviction.

In responding to the defendant’s objection to the CCW conviction included in his PSIR, the trial court stated “it would leave it in the report, it had no bearing on the sentence imposed, would not change his sentence, and that the trial court had plenty on which to base defendant’s sentence without including the CCW conviction.”

The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence, but remanded for clarification regarding the PSIR information. People v. Rinke, case no. 271756, released January 24, 2008.

People v. Hall

The Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because the defense counsel consented to erroneous jury instructions omitting the element of causation required to convict him under MCL 257.617(3) for failure to stop at the scene of an accident resulting in death. The Court held a conviction under MCL 257.617(3) clearly required a finding the defendant caused the accident in question. However, the trial court’s jury instructions omitted this element and instead indicated the defendant must have been involved in an accident resulting in a serious impairment of a body function or death.

The defense counsel expressly consented to the trial court’s jury instructions. The court held “defense counsel’s actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” Therefore, a new trial was warranted. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial. People v. Hall, case no. 271409, released January 24, 2008.

People v. Disney

The prosecution presented sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of OWI-First Offense and possession of a controlled substance. He was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender. Defendant argued there was insufficient evidence he possessed the drug without a prescription, was already intoxicated when he drove, and was the only person who could have committed the crime.

However, the prescription was not in the defendant’s name, and he offered no evidence he had a valid reason to possess it. Given the testimony of the eyewitness that the defendant was driving and the state trooper’s finding the defendant minutes after the accident occurred, in the driver’s seat trying to start the car, sufficient evidence existed to support his convictions of the charged offenses.

The case was affirmed. People v. Disney, case no. 273367, released January 17, 2008.