People of Michigan v. William John Kucharski
330221
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Defendant was convicted by a jury of operating while intoxicated (OWI), third offense (MCL 257.625(1)(c)), sentenced to 120 days jail and 18 months probation; appeal affirmed.
- Police and a private witness found defendant unconscious in the driver’s seat of a truck with the engine running and the transmission in drive; a foot was reportedly on the brake.
- The truck was about 80% off the road and 20% in the roadway, partially blocking travel; some witnesses said it was facing a field and may have been out of gas.
- Defendant testified he never drove the truck, claimed another person (Kource) had driven it until it ran out of gas, and presented witnesses to support that he was not the driver.
- Prosecution evidence included defendant’s statements that he must have been driving, no one else was observed near the truck when officers arrived, and breath/blood tests showing high BAC (.22 breath; .17 blood).
- The court resolved credibility conflicts for the jury, applying precedent holding an intoxicated person can be "operating" when the vehicle poses a significant risk of collision even if motionless or inoperative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant was "operating" the vehicle when police arrived | Defendant was in the driver’s seat with engine running and transmission in drive; only foot on brake prevented movement, creating a collision risk | Defendant never drove; another person had driven earlier; engine running or being in drive does not prove intent to drive | The court held sufficient evidence that defendant was operating the truck because it posed a significant risk of collision (engine running, in drive, partially in roadway) |
| Whether the vehicle was on a highway or place generally accessible to motor vehicles | Truck was 20% in the roadway and blocking part of the road; officers would have to tow if unoccupied | Defendant argued truck faced a field and was effectively off the road, so not on a public roadway | Court held evidence supported that the truck was on a public roadway |
| Whether evidence supported intoxication element | BAC and admissions established intoxication (.22 breath, .17 blood; admissions at scene) | Defendant did not contest intoxication on appeal; only questioned equipment reliability for breath test | Court treated intoxication as established by test results and admissions |
| Sufficiency of the evidence overall to sustain conviction | Circumstantial and testimonial evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find all elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Defendant argued reasonable theories of innocence (someone else drove, vehicle posed no risk) | Court affirmed conviction, applying de novo sufficiency review and resolving inferences in favor of the prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Wood, 450 Mich 399 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (defines "operating" by risk-of-collision when unconscious/asleep driver found in motionless but potentially movable vehicle)
- People v Lechleitner, 291 Mich App 56 (Court of Appeals of Michigan) (Wood still good law; operation continues where vehicle placed in position creating significant risk even if not operational)
- People v Burton, 252 Mich App 130 (Court of Appeals of Michigan) (insufficient evidence of operation where vehicle posed little risk and defendant lacked intent to drive)
- People v Solmonson, 261 Mich App 657 (Court of Appeals of Michigan) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences can support operation finding despite defendant’s contradictory testimony)
- People v Hyde, 285 Mich App 428 (Court of Appeals of Michigan) (elements required for OWI conviction under MCL 257.625(1))