(An unpublished opinion is not binding as precedent but may have persuasive value in court.)

People v. Avigne

Defendant appealed by right her convictions for resisting or assaulting a police officer, contrary to MCL 750.81d(1), and operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), contrary to MCL 257.625(1)(a).

Defendant argued that the prosecutor presented insufficient evidence to support her OWI conviction. She contended that the prosecutor did not present adequate evidence of the first and third elements. Under MCL 257.625(1), OWI requires proof of three elements: (1) the defendant operated a motor vehicle, (2) on a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, (3) while under the influence of liquor or a controlled substance, or a combination of the two, or with a blood alcohol content of .08 or more.

The evidence showed that defendant approached an individual at a gasoline station and told him that she had crashed her truck on her way home from a couple of bars, and she needed a ride home. This individual observed a truck off the road by a tree “like she had hit the tree.” The attendant at the gasoline station observed defendant run toward this individual’s car and ask to be driven away when the defendant noticed an officer across the street.

The attendant suggested to the officer that the truck might be defendant’s truck, and a LIEN search confirmed that it was registered to the defendant. When the officer drove to the defendant’s address, he found her exiting this individual’s car. The Court of Appeals held that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant operated a motor vehicle on a public road, thereby satisfying the first two elements of OWI.

The evidence also showed that the defendant was under the influence, meaning she “was substantially deprived of normal control or clarity of mind.” The officer detected that defendant smelled strongly of intoxicants. Defendant slurred her speech and repeatedly used profanities. Defendant’s own actions, including punching a police officer in the face, showed that she was under the influence of liquor.

Therefore, sufficient evidence existed to convict her of OWI.

The case was affirmed. People v. Avigne, case no. 280078, released December 11, 2008.

People v. Burruss

The defendant was charged with possession with intent to deliver 50 or more but less than 450 grams of cocaine. The drugs were seized from the defendant’s vehicle following a traffic stop. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, challenging the validity of the stop. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the charges. The People appealed.

Under the law, a person is prohibited from driving a vehicle with “a dangling ornament or other suspended object that obstructs the vision of the driver of the vehicle, except as authorized by law.” MCL 257.709(1) (c). The Court of Appeals stated the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant’s vehicle was in violation of the afore-mentioned statute; he observed two air fresheners dangling from the rearview mirror. However, vehicles registered in another state are not subjected to this provision of the statute. MCL 257.903(3) (d).

The court held there was no evidence that the officer had any reason to believe that the displayed license plate was invalid. He did not run a LIEN check before he initiated the stop, and he did not identify any other defect or irregularity suggesting the plate was not valid.

Therefore, the dangling ornaments did not create reasonable suspicion for stopping a vehicle registered in another state, and the trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress.

The case was affirmed. People v. Burruss, case no. 281039, released November 18, 2009.

People v. Czuj

The defendant appealed as of right his jury convictions of operating a water vessel under the influence of liquor causing death, contrary to MCL 324.80176(4), negligent homicide, contrary to MCL 324.81072, operating a water vessel under the influence of liquor causing a serious impairment of a body function, contrary to MCL 324.80176(5), and negligent crippling, contrary to MCL 324.80172. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 100 months to 15 years.

The defendant operated his speedboat from one lake to another lake around midnight. A basin, in which no wake is allowed, connected the two lakes. As the defendant entered the second lake, he accelerated, reaching a speed of 20 mph to 40 mph. He approached a speedboat and a pontoon boat tied together and drifting on a sandbar.

The defendant’s boat struck the two boats. One of the occupants of the boats was thrown into the water and died of multiple blunt force injuries and drowning. Another occupant of the boats sustained severe injuries. Witnesses reported the moon was full and bright at the time and the sky was clear. The defendant admitted he drank six beers within the last four or five hours and two of his passengers estimated he had more to drink than what he said.

The defendant’s BAC approximately three hours after the crash was .084, and using retrograde extrapolation, Dr. Felix Adatsi of the Michigan State Police Laboratory opined his BAC at the time of the crash was between .103 and .119.

The defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that he had previously been arrested for OUIL. The Court of Appeals agreed that the trial court improperly admitted the evidence, but held reversal was not warranted because the error was harmless.

The court further held that there was extensive admissible evidence that the defendant was operating his boat at an immoderate speed or in a careless, reckless, or negligent manner, and therefore, substantial justice does not require vacating defendant’s convictions.

The case was affirmed. People v. Czuj, case no. 276581, released September 23, 2008.

Consult Your Prosecutor Before Adopting Practices Suggested by Reports in this Article. The statutes and court decisions in this publication are reported to help you keep up with trends in the law. Discuss your practices that relate to these statutes and cases with your commanding officers, police legal advisors, and the prosecuting attorney before changing your practices in reliance on a reported court decision or legislative change. This material was developed through a project funded by the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning and the U.S. Department of Transportation.