The defendant was convicted of two counts of involuntary manslaughter with a motor vehicle and one count of felonious driving. The vehicle driven by the defendant collided with another vehicle with three occupants, killing two and seriously injuring the third. Two witnesses saw defendant’s car traveling at high rates of speed on the day of the crash. The driver of another vehicle saw defendant’s car “traveling kind of recklessly or at a high rate of speed,” estimating it was going 60 to 65 mph in a 55 mph zone.

An off-duty sheriff’s deputy saw defendant’s car drive by his home twice at high rates of speed, exceeding 90 mph. He was so concerned he tried to follow defendant’s car, and he arrived at the crash scene four or five minutes after seeing the car pass his home the second time. Defendant’s passengers testified the car ride only lasted 10 to 15 minutes.

The defendant argued that the testimony presented at trial by witnesses concerning the defendant’s vehicle traveling well beyond the speed limit was reversible error because such testimony constituted prior bad acts in contravention of Michigan Rules of Evidence 404(b). The court of appeals disagreed.
The court stated that the witnesses, as lay witnesses, were competent to testify about their opinions concerning the speed of defendant’s car. The defendant’s conduct was relevant to one of the elements of the charged offense of involuntary manslaughter, i.e. whether his conduct constituted ordinary negligence or gross negligence. The jury was entitled to have facts about defendant’s driving on another road “as an integral part of the events that ultimately played out minutes later at the intersection” where the crash occurred.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the two witnesses’ testimony about defendant’s driving on the other road. The defendant offered no evidence to show otherwise that the prior bad acts contravened Michigan Rules of Evidence 404(b).

The case was affirmed. People v. Morrison, case no. 284218, released August 6, 2009.

Defendant was charged with possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv).

On November 21, 2006, at approximately 10:30 p.m. a police officer notices a vehicle on the highway with a license plate from another state. He was unable to run a check on the plate because a frame surrounding the plate partially obscured the name of the issuing state. When he moved his marked patrol vehicle closer, the car turned right onto another road in a manner that led the officer to believe that the driver was attempting to evade him. The officer still could not see the state on the license plate. He initiated a traffic stop for further investigation.

Defendant stopped his car and ultimately consented to a search of the vehicle during which two baggies of cocaine were found. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the police lacked probable cause to conduct the traffic stop that led to the discovery of the cocaine. The trial court agreed, granted defendant’s motion, and dismissed the charge. The prosecution appeals as of right, asserting that defendant’s failure to use his turn signal before changing lanes provided probable cause for the traffic stop.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the prosecutor. In the present case, the police officer conducted a traffic stop because, in his view from the patrol car, the license plate was obstructed. However, the officer also noted that when he was attempting to view the plate, the vehicle “abruptly” changed lanes off the road. The Court noted that this abrupt turn as recorded on the videotape demonstrated that a civil infraction occurred because defendant turned his vehicle off the roadway without using his turn signal, MCL 257.648.

The Court held that the police officer properly stopped the automobile for violation of a civil infraction, MCL 257.648. Consequently, defendant was not unlawfully detained when asked for his consent to search, and consent was not challenged by the defense. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and in dismissing the charge because his failure to use his turn signal before changing lanes provided probable cause for the traffic stop.

The case was reversed. People v. Williams, case no. 282100, released August 6, 2009.