DUI Defendant Convicted of Causing Death Despite Victim’s Negligent Driving
On October 18, 2007, the Michigan Court of Appeals released an unpublished opinion in the case People v. Swift, affirming the DUI defendant’s guilty conviction of driving under the influence of a controlled substance causing death under M.C.L. 257.625(4). The DUI defendant was sentenced as a second habitual offender to 142 to 270 months in prison.
The DUI defendant argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions of driving under the influence of a controlled substance causing death.
According to the court of appeals, the DUI defendant did not dispute that he was driving the automobile at issue or that the victim died from injuries suffered in the accident. Further, the court explained that it is not disputed that that marijuana and THC, its active ingredient, are controlled substances under M.C.L 333.7212(1)(d).
In this DUI case, experts testified on behalf of the prosecution that the DUI defendant’s level of THC was too high to have been the result of secondhand smoke, and that the DUI defendant likely consumed the marijuana within 12 hours of the accident. Consequently, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that
the DUI defendant knowingly consumed marijuana before the accident, and that a reasonable jury could have also determined from this evidence that the DUI defendant voluntarily decided to drive knowing that he might be impaired.
The only issue the appellate court had to review was whether the element of causation was satisfied, because under Michigan DUI law, to be convicted of driving under the influence of a controlled substance causing death, there must be evidence that the DUI defendant caused the death simply by his driving — whether his
driving was “impaired” is irrelevant to the analysis, the court noted. “For the purposes of . . . driving under the influence of a controlled
substance causing death, the defendant’s driving must be the factual cause of death.” As the court stated, “[a] defendant’s act is the factual cause of the accident and the death if ‘absent the defendant’s conduct’ the accident would not have occurred.”
The DUI defendant argued that he was not the factual cause of the accident, claiming that it was the accident victim’s act of “pulling out into the intersection when he had an obligation to wait at the stop sign until traffic had cleared” that was the factual cause of the accident.
But the court of appeals disagreed, stating that but for the DUI defendant’s driving, the accident would not have occurred. The court, however, did not end its analysis there. It next reviewed whether there was proximate cause, or as the court explained, whether “the fatal accident was the direct and natural result of defendant’s excessive speed and marijuana consumption.” According to the court, had the DUI defendant not been speeding or impaired by drugs, “he likely would have driven with ordinary care and would have had time to react to avoid the accident.”
The defendant argued, however, that there was an intervening, superseding cause breaking the causal chain between his conduct and the victim’s injury. “Defendant argues that the victim’s act of pulling out in front of him was an intervening cause that broke the causal link.” But again, the court disagreed. “[A]n act breaks the causal link and becomes a superseding cause only if the ‘act by the victim or third party was not reasonably foreseeable—e.g., gross negligence or intentional misconduct . . . .’”
“We conclude that the victim’s driving into the intersection may have been negligent, but it was not grossly negligent and was foreseeable based on an objective standard of reasonableness. Drivers pull out in front of other cars regularly. A reasonable driver is aware that a sudden stop to avoid an accident may be required, and adjusts his or her speed accordingly. Although defendant had the right of way, he did not have the right to be driving 30 miles per hour or more in excess of the posted speed limit after having consumed marijuana. It appears that the victim pulled out directly in front of defendant; however, the victim may well have believed that defendant was traveling at the posted speed limit and that there was accordingly sufficient time to do so safely. Indeed, testimony suggested that when a car is approaching another, it is often difficult to judge its speed. While the victim apparently misjudged defendant’s speed, his pulling out into the intersection was not grossly negligent and was reasonably foreseeable. Under the circumstances, a reasonable jury could have concluded that defendant’s driving was both the factual and proximate cause of the accident, and that the victim’s act was not a superseding, intervening cause.”
The court, thus, concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish a factual causation and proximate causation with respect to the charge of driving under the influence of a controlled substance causing death.
Click here to read the entire opinion.
The GL Law Group, PLC provides free information on Michigan DUI law and guide to choosing a good Michigan DUI attorney. If you have recently been arrested for a DUI, it’s important to contact a good DUI lawyer soon. A guilty DUI conviction can ruin your life. Contact us to set up a free DUI case review with a recommended DUI lawyer.
