People of Michigan v. Edward Michael Czuprynski
325 Mich. App. 449
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- On June 16, 2015, defendant struck pedestrian James Stivenson; Stivenson suffered severe leg fractures and head injury and now has difficulty walking.
- Evidence: defendant had consumed alcohol, took a pill described as a sleeping aid, appeared drowsy to officers, and car data showed 41 mph (speed limit 35) with no braking before impact; Stivenson had BAC 0.19% and wore dark clothing and may have run into the street.
- Defendant was charged on two counts: (I) operating while visibly impaired causing serious impairment (acquitted), and (II) committing a moving violation causing serious impairment under MCL 257.601d(2) (convicted).
- Trial court instructed the jury using M. Crim. JI 15.19, which defined causation as tied to the defendant’s "operation of the vehicle" (factual and proximate causation) but did not expressly require that the moving violation itself be the proximate cause.
- During deliberations the jury asked whether a moving violation is criminal in all cases; the court answered that a moving violation causing serious impairment is criminal and directed jurors back to M. Crim. JI 15.19 (thereby reiterating the model instruction).
- On appeal the court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding the instruction misapplied causation by allowing conviction based on operation alone rather than a causal link between the moving violation (while operating) and the injury.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 257.601d(2) requires that the moving violation (together with operation) proximately cause the serious impairment | Instruction correctly required operation to be factual and proximate cause | Instruction erroneously allowed conviction without proving that the moving violation itself contributed to the injury | Held: The statute requires that the moving violation together with operation cause the injury; the model instruction misapplied proximate causation and was erroneous |
| Whether the trial court’s supplemental instruction cured the error | Supplemental reply clarified that a moving violation must cause serious impairment | Supplemental answer mixed a correct statement with referral back to the erroneous model instruction, causing confusion | Held: Supplemental instruction was insufficient because it directed jurors back to the incorrect instruction; error was not harmless |
| Whether jury unanimity was required as to which moving violation occurred | Prosecutor may charge alternative theories under a single count; general verdict is permissible | Jury should be required to unanimously agree on which moving violation | Held: No unanimity error—alternative theories under one statutory count do not require election/unanimity (case law supports) |
| Whether MCL 257.601d(2) requires proof of mens rea (negligence/recklessness) | Statute is strict liability; no negligence required | Defendant argued due process requires mens rea | Held: Following People v. Pace, statute does not require negligence; strict liability is constitutional |
| Whether the search-warrant affidavit for defendant’s blood draw was invalid due to misstatements/omissions | Warrant supported probable cause despite some attribution errors; officer’s reliance reasonable | Affidavit contained material misstatements/omissions negating probable cause | Held: Probable cause supported or, at minimum, officer’s reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable under Leon doctrine; suppression not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Schaefer, 473 Mich. 418 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (interpreting causation in OUIL-causing-death statute; operation must cause death, not intoxication)
- People v. Small, 467 Mich. 259 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (last-antecedent rule and when commas alter modifier scope)
- People v. Riddle, 467 Mich. 116 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (standard for reversal for instructional error; review of instructions)
- People v. Pace, 311 Mich. App. 1 (Court of Appeals of Michigan) (holding MCL 257.601d(2) is strict liability; negligence not required)
- People v. Russo, 439 Mich. 584 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (deference to magistrate on probable cause; common-sense reading of affidavits)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Supreme Court of the United States) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for defective warrants)