People v. Bergman
312 Mich. App. 471
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In July 2013 Lisa Bergman crossed the centerline in heavy rain/fog and collided head‑on with a GMC pickup; both occupants (driver Russell Ward and passenger Koby Raymo) died. Bergman was charged and convicted of two counts each of second‑degree murder, OUIL causing death, and operating with a suspended license causing death. Sentence: concurrent terms (25–50 years for murders) as a second‑offense habitual offender.
- Toxicology: Bergman’s BAC was below the legal limit but she tested positive for carisoprodol (Soma), meprobamate, oxycodone, and amphetamine; an expert testified combined drugs could magnify impairment.
- Prosecution admitted seven prior incidents (MRE 404(b)) showing Bergman drove erratically or while impaired on prescription drugs to prove knowledge/absence of mistake and malice for second‑degree murder.
- Defense sought admission of the victims’ toxicology (excluded), a court‑funded toxicology expert (denied for lack of nexus), and a court investigator (motion withdrawn).
- At sentencing the court scored offense variables (OVs) producing an OV total of 195 and PRV 37 placing Bergman in OV Level III/PRV D; defense raised Apprendi/Alleyne/Lockridge arguments on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prosecution) | Defendant's Argument (Bergman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victims’ toxicology | Irrelevant because defendant crossed centerline; would unduly confuse jury | Ward’s intoxication was relevant to causation and malice—could show negligence/gross negligence by victim | Exclusion affirmed: victims’ substances not a superseding cause or sufficiently probative of gross negligence here (Feezel distinguished) |
| Court‑funded toxicology expert | Not required absent a demonstrated flaw or nexus; prosecution provided instrumental data | Indigent defendant entitled to expert to review lab results and B‑sample; needed for meaningful defense | Denial affirmed: defendant failed to show a sufficient nexus or likely benefit from a defense expert (Ake/Carnicom analysis) |
| Court‑appointed investigator | N/A | Needed investigator to locate witnesses; claimed indigence | Waived: motion withdrawn before decision, so no reviewable error |
| Double jeopardy (multiple convictions) | Different statutes punish distinct societal harms; cumulative convictions permissible | Multiple convictions (murder + OUIL + suspended license) punish same conduct | Affirmed: convictions do not violate double jeopardy because statutes have different elements and legislative intent permits cumulative punishment (Werner/Kulpinski logic) |
| Admission of prior bad‑acts (MRE 404(b)) | Prior incidents show knowledge/absence of mistake and propensity to blackout when using drugs — relevant to malice | Prior acts were unfairly prejudicial, not admissible for intent/malice; Old Chief analogy to limit evidence | Affirmed: prior acts admissible to show knowledge/absence of mistake and probative value outweighed prejudice; limiting instruction given (Werner controlling) |
| Sentencing fact‑finding / OV scoring (Apprendi/Alleyne/Lockridge) | OV points reflected facts the jury found (deaths; OUIL conviction) so no Sixth Amendment violation | Judicial fact‑finding increased guideline floor without jury determination | No plain error: jury verdicts and admitted facts supplied at least the minimum OV points to place defendant in the same cell, so Lockridge prejudice not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Werner, 254 Mich. App. 528 (evidence of prior blackout admissible to show knowledge/absence of mistake and malice)
- People v. Feezel, 486 Mich. 184 (victim intoxication may be material to proximate cause when it could be a superseding grossly negligent act)
- Lockridge v. Michigan, 498 Mich. 358 (Michigan sentencing guidelines rendered advisory under Sixth Amendment)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (facts that increase mandatory minimum are elements requiring jury finding)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (indigent defendant entitled to access to basic tools of defense; but nexus required)
- People v. Carnicom, 272 Mich. App. 614 (defendant must show nexus between need for expert and facts of case)
- People v. Kulpinski, 243 Mich. App. 8 (dual convictions permissible where statutes enforce distinct norms)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (court may exclude prejudicial evidence when a stipulation would suffice)