People of Michigan v. Kowase Delvolun Scroggins, 332623

Defendant Scroggins drove an SUV that crashed, killing front-seat passenger Adoniss Mitchner; toxicology showed defendant’s BAC ~.195 and officer observed slurred speech and odor of intoxicants.
At trial defendant admitted losing control while turning too fast and claimed Mitchner grabbed the steering wheel, causing the fatal crash.
Police testimony and scene evidence supported excessive speed, curb strike, collision with a pole, and severe intrusion causing blunt force head trauma to Mitchner.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of OWI causing death, operating while license suspended causing death, and high-BAC OWI; sentenced to consecutive prison terms as a fourth habitual offender.
On appeal Scroggins argued (1) ineffective assistance because trial counsel failed to investigate/call Peris Smith, who allegedly would testify that Mitchner had grabbed a steering wheel on a prior occasion, and (2) his right to present a defense was violated when the court sustained an objection to questioning about whether Mitchner possessed cocaine the night of the crash.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting both the ineffective-assistance and right-to-present-a-defense claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Scroggins)	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to investigate/call Peris Smith	Trial counsel’s performance was reasonable; offered record lacked a showing that absent the witness the outcome would differ.	Counsel was ineffective for not calling Smith to corroborate that Mitchner had previously grabbed a steering wheel, which would support superseding-intervening-cause theory.	Rejected. Prior-occasion testimony would not prove what happened here, likely inadmissible under MRE 404/406, and would not make a different outcome reasonably probable given intoxication, speed, and curb strike.
Exclusion of questioning about victim’s alleged cocaine possession — denial of right to present a defense	Exclusion was proper because the proffered evidence was irrelevant and speculative as to causation and gross negligence.	Excluding the question prevented presentation of evidence corroborating that Mitchner was intoxicated and thus could have caused the crash by grabbing the wheel.	Rejected. Evidence of mere possession was too speculative and not necessary to prove intoxication or that Mitchner grabbed the wheel; exclusion did not violate constitutional right to present a defense.

People v. Feezel, 486 Mich. 184 (victim intoxication can be highly probative of gross negligence and causation)
People v. Schaefer, 473 Mich. 418 (proximate cause and intervening/superseding causes analysis)
People v. Heft, 299 Mich. App. 69 (ineffective-assistance standard is mixed question of law and fact)
People v. Galloway, 307 Mich. App. 151 (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
People v. Fyda, 288 Mich. App. 446 (prejudice requires a reasonable probability of a different outcome)
People v. Hoag, 460 Mich. 1 (claims reviewable on appeal when facts or mistakes are apparent on the record)
People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (habit evidence standard and limits for routine-conduct proof)
People v. Anstey, 476 Mich. 436 (constitutional right to present a defense and its limits)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (Confrontation and right to present witnesses)
People v. McNally, 470 Mich. 1 (plain-error standard for unpreserved constitutional claims)