People of Michigan v. Kellie Nichole Stock
160968
| Mich. | Jul 9, 2021Background
- Defendant Kellie Nichole Stock led police on a high-speed chase, ran a red light, collided with another vehicle, causing the other driver’s death and a serious injury to Stock’s passenger. Stock was arrested and taken to a hospital.
- A hospital urine toxicology screen detected an unidentified cocaine metabolite in Stock’s urine; no test result identifying intact cocaine in her blood at the time of the crash was presented.
- Stock was convicted in the trial court of OWI causing death and OWI causing serious impairment under MCL 257.625(8) (prohibition on operating with “any amount” of certain controlled substances in the body); the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Michigan Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave, reversed the Court of Appeals as to the OWI convictions based on insufficiency of evidence that the urine metabolite established the presence of cocaine in Stock’s body at the time of the collision, and remanded for further proceedings including a resentencing inquiry on remaining convictions.
- A two-justice dissent argued the metabolite result and Stock’s pre-crash conduct provided sufficient circumstantial evidence for a rational jury to find she had cocaine in her body when she drove.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the presence of a cocaine metabolite in urine proves the statutory element that a controlled substance was in the defendant’s body under MCL 257.625(8) | Metabolite detection is probative circumstantial evidence that cocaine was in Stock’s body and supports conviction | An unidentified metabolite is not shown to be a scheduled controlled substance and does not prove cocaine was present at the time of the crash | Reversed: prosecution failed to prove the metabolite itself was a controlled substance or that cocaine was in the body at the time of the collision |
| Who bears burden to prove the controlled‑substance‑in‑body element and sufficiency standard | Prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt; it did so here via metabolite and conduct evidence | Metabolite alone insufficient to meet burden; prosecution must tie metabolite to a scheduled substance or to contemporaneous presence | Majority: prosecution failed its burden on that element; convictions reversed; dissent would find evidence sufficient |
| Applicability of People v Feezel (marijuana metabolite ruling) to cocaine metabolites | Feezel limits prosecutions based solely on metabolites absent identification or proof the metabolite is a scheduled substance | Cocaine metabolites differ from THC metabolites; closer biological link to impairment and metabolite presence is stronger circumstantial proof | Majority applied Feezel principle: unidentified metabolite cannot sustain conviction; dissent would not extend Feezel broadly to cocaine metabolites |
| Remand/resentencing consequences after partial reversal | Court should remand to determine need for resentencing on remaining convictions | N/A | Case remanded to Wayne Circuit Court to determine whether resentencing is required for remaining convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Feezel, 486 Mich 184 (2010) (held 11‑carboxy‑THC is not a Schedule 1 controlled substance for purposes of MCL 257.625(8))
- People v. Derror, 475 Mich 316 (2006) (prior decision on THC metabolites, later overruled by Feezel)
- People v. Wang, 505 Mich 239 (2020) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges: de novo; view evidence in light most favorable to prosecutor)
- People v. Nowack, 462 Mich 392 (2000) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences may establish criminal elements)
- People v. Schaefer, 473 Mich 418 (2005) (elements for OWI causing death/serious impairment under MCL 257.625)