People of Michigan v. Kiefer Derik Olger
331705
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 27, 2017Background
- Defendant Kiefer Derik Olger was convicted of delivery of heroin causing death related to the overdose death of Singer; appeal addresses sufficiency of evidence (Docket No. 331705) and a separate conviction affirmed (Docket No. 331876).
- Singer was found to have morphine and 6-monoacetylmorphine (heroin metabolite) in his system; medical experts attributed death to respiratory failure from CNS depression, with heroin as a contributing cause.
- Witness Trim saw Singer at a gas station restroom and later at Trim’s house; Trim observed possible drug paraphernalia and a ‘‘powdery’’ substance earlier that night; a lottery ticket testing positive for heroin was later recovered from Singer’s vehicle.
- Deputy Lo (undercover) testified about a November controlled buy and recounted defendant allegedly admitting he had sold heroin to a “group of kids” and referenced someone who overdosed; Lo’s testimony linked defendant to sales to the group present with Singer the night before the death.
- No direct evidence tied defendant to the particular heroin that caused Singer’s death: no fingerprints on the lottery ticket, no drug testing of paraphernalia, no testimony that Trim or Connelly bought or transferred heroin from defendant to Singer, and experts could not fix ingestion timing precisely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that defendant delivered the heroin causing Singer’s death | Prosecution: circumstantial proof — defendant sold heroin to members of Singer’s group; packaging similarity (lottery tickets); Lo’s admission evidence; cell records and post-death messages support inference defendant was the source | Olger: evidence is speculative; no direct link tying defendant’s sale to the heroin Singer consumed; expert testimony did not establish timing or route of ingestion; alternative sources exist | Majority: affirmed conviction on Docket No. 331705 (disagreed by concurrence/dissent). Jansen, J. would reverse for insufficiency — she finds evidence speculative and insufficient to prove delivery beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Causation — whether heroin delivered by defendant was a contributing cause | Prosecution: toxicology and ME testimony show heroin contributed substantially to death; statute requires only that controlled substance be a contributing substantial factor | Defense: experts could not say how much or when heroin was ingested or whether other substances contributed; prosecution failed to prove defendant’s delivery caused the death | Held: Experts established heroin contributed to death; causation element satisfied as to heroin being a substantial contributing cause (disputed link to defendant’s delivery) |
| Admissibility/weight of Deputy Lo’s testimony recounting defendant’s statements about prior sales | Prosecution: Lo’s testimony corroborates that defendant sold heroin to the group present with Singer and supports inference defendant was source | Defense: Lo’s hearsay-leaning account is unreliable and highly prejudicial; may not have been admissible absent consolidation; interaction context suspicious | Held: Jury credited Lo’s testimony; concurrence expresses concern about its weight and admissibility but defers to jury credibility determinations |
| Remedy if insufficient evidence | Prosecution: conviction stands because reasonable inferences support verdict | Defense: if evidence insufficient, double jeopardy requires acquittal, not retrial | Held: Majority affirms; concurrence (Jansen, J.) would vacate convictions on Docket No. 331705 and remand the other case for resentencing due to insufficient evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (Due Process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Wolfe, 440 Mich. 508 (1992) (appellate sufficiency review must consider evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- People v. Nowack, 462 Mich. 392 (2000) (prosecutor need not negate every theory of innocence but must prove elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- People v. Petrella, 424 Mich. 221 (1985) (factfinder may not indulge in inferences wholly unsupported by evidence)
- People v. Bailey, 451 Mich. 657 (1996) (defendant need not be sole cause of harm; need only be a substantial contributing cause)
- People v. Hardiman, 466 Mich. 417 (2002) (appellate court should not adopt inferences the jury rejected)
- People v. Mitchell, 301 Mich. App. 282 (2013) (where evidence insufficient, double jeopardy principles require acquittal rather than retrial)