By: Kenneth Stecker
PAAM Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor
A 60 Minutes feature reported on how
New York’s Nassau County District
Attorney, Kathleen Rice, successfully prosecuted
a drunken driving case
as murder.
.jpg)
The defendant, Martin
Heidgen, was driving his
full-size pickup with 3x
the legal limit of alcohol
in his system. His friends
told him not to drive but he
did not listen and ended
up driving the wrong-way
on the roadway before
crashing head-on into a
limousine carrying the
Flynn family from a wedding. The result
was horrifying.
Seven year old Katie Flynn and the
limousine driver, Stanley Rabinowitz
were killed by the defendant. Katie’s
family was also injured, and both
parents were there to witness the end
of Katie’s life.
Drunk driving that results in death are
especially serious cases for prosecutors
to try before a jury. In Michigan, the
prosecutor has broad discretion to bring
any charge supported by the evidence.
In Michigan, Operating While Intoxicated
(OWI) cases involving death generally
fall into three categories:
1.Operating While Intoxicated
(OWI) Causing Death
2.Manslaughter with a Motor Vehicle
3.Second-Degree Murder
OWI Causing Death
To convict a defendant of Operating
While Intoxicated Causing Death, the
prosecution must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that:
1. The defendant was operating
his motor vehicle in violat ion
of MCL 257.625 (1), (3), or (8);
2. The defendant voluntarily decided
to drive, knowing that they had
consumed liquor and/or a controlled
substance and might be intoxicated; and
3. The defendant’s operation of the
motor vehicle caused the victim’s death.
People v. Schaefer, 473 Mich. 418
(2005).
Manslaughter with a Motor Vehicle
To convict a defendant of Manslaughter
with a Motor Vehicle, the prosecution
must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant operated the
vehicle in a grossly negligent manner
and substantially caused the death of
another.
People v. Lardie, 452 Mich. 231 (1996).
Second –Degree Murder
To convict a defendant of Second-
Degree Murder the prosecution must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
there was:
1. a death,
2. caused by an act of the defendant,
3. with malice,
4. without justification or excuse.
People v. Goecke, 457 Mich. 442
(1998).
.jpg)
Under Michigan law, malice is defined
as the intent to kill, the intent to cause
great bodily harm, or the intent to do an
act in wanton and willful disregard of the
likelihood that the natural tendency of such behavior is to cause death or great
bodily harm. Id.
Malice may be implied when the
defendant does an act with a high
probability that it will result in death and
does it with a base antisocial motive and
with wanton disregard
for human life. Id.
In addition to the
Second-Degree Murder
charge, the prosecutor
also has the discretion to simultaneously charge
the defendant with
OWI Causing Death.
Second-Degree Murder
and OWI Causing
Death convictions do
not violate the Double
Jeopardy Clause to the
5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const.
Amendment V.
Evidence of Second-Degree Murder
existed in each of the following cases
where the defendants were charged
with having killed victims while driving
drunk.
People v. Gonzalez, -Mich. App.-
(1998, Muskegon County).
A car being
driven by the defendant collided with a
sport utility vehicle, killing three of its
passengers. The crash occurred after
the defendant led police on a chase
at speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour. The defendant’s blood alcohol
level was .13. The trial court sentenced
the defendant to three concurrent
sentences of life imprisonment.
People v. Sadler, -Mich. App.- (1998,
Wayne County).
The defendant went
to a bar, consumed three alcohol drinks,
and then decided to drive home. In
the course of driving home, defendant
claimed that he passed out at the wheel
and his car veered from the roadway
and struck a woman who was jogging
on the shoulder. Defendant’s BAC
was 0.21, and defendant admitted that
he consumed cocaine the day before.
The defendant pled guilty to Second-Degree Murder and Operating Under the Influence of Liquor and Causing
Death. The defendant was sentenced
to 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment for his
Second-Degree Murder conviction.
People v. Werner, 254 Mich. App.
528 (2002, Oakland County).
The
prosecution showed that the defendant
drove after becoming seriously
intoxicated. Moreover, the defendant
knew from a recent prior incident
that if he drank, he might experience
blackout and drive recklessly and
irresponsibly. The defendant was
convicted of Second-Degree Murder
and Operating Under the Influence of
Liquor Causing Death.
People v. Bell, -Mich. App.- (2003,
Oakland County).
A witness saw the
defendant’s car come up behind her and
approach so close that she could not
see its headlights in her rearview mirror.
The witness moved onto the shoulder
of the road, and after moving onto
the shoulder she saw the defendant
swerve into an SUV, causing the driver
of the SUV to suffer fatal injuries. The
defendant’s BAC was .25, which is over
three times the legal limit. The jury convicted the defendant of Second-
Degree Murder and Operating Under
the Influence of Liquor causing death.
The trial court sentenced the defendant
as a habitual third offender to 35 to 60
years’ imprisonment for the Second
Degree Murder conviction
These cases show that no one factor
by itself may be enough. It will depend
on the facts of each case. One thing
holds true in these cases, the facts
established a level of conduct that
goes beyond drunk driving. All of these
defendants acted in obvious disregard
of life-endangering consequences.
In conclusion, prosecuting attorneys
throughout our state who handle
these very difficult cases should be commended because they are
committed to seeing that the public is
protected and that serious criminals
are punished by incarcerating them in
prison.
NOTE:
• Consult your prosecutor before
adopting practices suggested by reports
in this article.
• The court decisions in this article are
designed to keep you informed of trends
in the law.
• Discuss your practices that relate
to these types of cases with your
commanding officers, police legal advisors, and the prosecuting attorney
before changing your practices in
reliance on a reported court decision.
