People v. Hardy; People v. Glenn
494 Mich. 430
| Mich. | 2013Background
- Two consolidated Michigan cases (People v Hardy; People v Glenn) challenged 50‑point scoring under OV 7 (MCL 777.37(1)(a)) for “conduct designed to substantially increase the fear and anxiety a victim suffered during the offense.”
- Hardy: during a carjacking he pointed a shotgun at the victim and "racked" it; pleaded guilty; sentencing court assessed 50 points; Hardy later challenged OV 7 scoring and alleged ineffective assistance for counsel’s consent.
- Glenn: during an armed robbery he displayed what appeared to be a sawed‑off shotgun and struck two employees with the butt, knocking one down; sentencing court assessed 50 points; Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, treating OV 7 as requiring particularly egregious conduct.
- The Supreme Court clarified the standard of review: factual findings reviewed for clear error (preponderance of the evidence); statutory application (whether facts satisfy OV language) reviewed de novo.
- The Court interpreted OV 7’s phrase “conduct designed to substantially increase the fear and anxiety a victim suffered during the offense” to require intent to make fear/anxiety greater by a considerable amount and to permit consideration of conduct beyond the minimum necessary to commit the offense (including conduct inherent in the crime unless statute says otherwise).
- Court held OV 7 properly scored at 50 points in both Hardy (racking shotgun intended to make victim fear imminent death) and Glenn (striking victims with weapon to intimidate and force compliance); denied Hardy’s ineffective assistance claim because an objection would have been meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper interpretation of OV 7 phrase "conduct designed to substantially increase the fear and anxiety" | State: phrase covers intent‑based acts that meaningfully augment victim fear; may include conduct beyond baseline crime elements | Defendants (and some CA panel): phrase should be limited to particularly egregious acts akin to sadism/torture/excessive brutality | Court: "designed" requires intent; "substantially" means a considerable increase in fear; courts may consider conduct inherent in the crime to determine baseline and whether defendant went beyond it |
| Whether courts must ignore conduct inherent to the offense when scoring OV 7 | State: may consider conduct inherent in offense unless statute expressly prohibits it | CA decision argued some inherent conduct should be discounted | Court: absent express statutory prohibition, evidence that overlaps with offense elements may be considered; but courts must establish a baseline fear for the crime and then ask whether defendant’s conduct went beyond it |
| Application to Hardy (racking shotgun during carjacking) | State: racking made gun ready to fire and was intended to make victim fear imminent violent death; supports 50 points | Hardy: racking was to obtain compliance, not to substantially increase fear beyond a typical carjacking | Held: 50 points affirmed — racking went beyond minimum conduct and was intended to substantially (considerably) increase victim’s fear of imminent death |
| Application to Glenn (striking store employees with butt of gun during armed robbery) | State: physical assaults while demanding money were intended to and did substantially elevate victims’ fear and vulnerability | Glenn: CA argued OV 7 meant only torture/sadism/excessive brutality; striking beyond what’s necessary not always enough for 50 points | Held: 50 points reinstated — striking victims, knocking one down, and forcing them into vulnerable position showed intent to substantially increase fear; Court of Appeals reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (statutory sentencing standards; standard of review under the guidelines)
- People v Osantowski, 481 Mich 103 (trial‑court factual findings reviewed for clear error; preponderance standard)
- People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41 (statutory interpretation principles)
- People v Riley (After Remand), 468 Mich 135 (discussion of carjacking statutory elements)
- People v Mattoon, 271 Mich App 275 (example of conduct satisfying OV 7: prolonged threats and terrorizing conduct)