People v. Ball
297 Mich. App. 121
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant delivered half a gram of heroin to the victim in exchange for a PlayStation; the victim overdosed.
- Defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and unlawful delivery of less than 50 grams of heroin.
- At sentencing, the prosecutor sought 20 OV 1 points for aggravated use of a weapon; the court found heroin a harmful chemical substance under OV 1.
- The court ultimately held the heroin was not used as a weapon in the transaction and ordered resentencing with 0 OV 1 points.
- The court reversed and remanded for sentencing consistent with the opinion; no jurisdiction retained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OV1 requires use of a weapon, not merely a harmful substance | Prosecutor: heroin qualifies as harmful chemical substance under OV1 | Defendant: no weapon use; not OV1 | Heroin can be a harmful chemical substance but not used as a weapon here; OV1 points should be zero |
| Whether heroin was used as a weapon in the facts | Prosecution asserts context could amount to weapon use | Defendant: ordinary consensual transaction; no force or weapon use | No evidence of forced administration; not used as a weapon; remand with 0 OV1 points |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Blunt, 282 Mich App 81 (2009) (up to harmonize statutory language; use of OV1 principles)
- People v Carr, 489 Mich 855 (2011) (requires weapon use for OV1 scoring; methadone context)
- People v Pasha, 466 Mich 378 (2002) (statutory interpretation guidance in OV1 context)
- People v Hill, 269 Mich App 505 (2006) (interpretation of statutory language and intent)
- Grand Rapids v Crocker, 219 Mich 178 (1922) (statutory interpretation and harmonious enactment)