People v. Huston, 489 Mich. 451

Defendant, age 15, and a 16-year-old cohort, robbed a woman in a well-lit Mall parking lot at night, with BB guns and a knife; the victim was left on the ground and her purse taken.
The next day police recovered the victim’s car with two BB guns inside; defendant and cohort were identified and charged with armed robbery and carjacking.
Defendant pled guilty to armed robbery under a plea bargain; the trial court scored OV 10 at 15 points for predatory conduct and sentenced 180–600 months.
Court of Appeals reversed, holding OV 10 should be 0 points, concluding the victim’s vulnerability required personal characteristics.
Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding OV 10 may be 15 points when predatory conduct exploits a vulnerable victim, with predatory conduct defined as preoffense conduct directed at a victim.
Concurrences and dissents debated whether predatory conduct must be directed at a specific victim and how vulnerability is defined under MCL 777.40.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OV 10 predatory conduct requires directed victim focus	Huston argued predatory conduct must be directed at a specific victim under Cannon.	Defendant argued predatory conduct can be directed at a victim generally (community at large).	Predatory conduct must be directed at a victim (specific or identifiable).
Whether victim vulnerability can arise from external circumstances	Huston contends vulnerability can come from circumstances surrounding the victim, not only personal traits.	Cannon requires vulnerability to stem from inherent/personal characteristics or established relationships.	Vulnerability can arise from external circumstances that render the victim readily susceptible.
Whether the predatory conduct must be directed at one or more specific victims	Majority holds predatory conduct need not be directed at a single victim.	Cannon requires preoffense conduct to be directed at one or more specific victims.	Predatory conduct must be directed at a victim; the majority’s view expanded scope.
How Cannon’s framework applies to this preoffense conduct and OV 10	Cannon’s three-prong test governs when 15 points are warranted; lying in wait can qualify if directed at a victim.	The record shows run-of-the-mill planning lacking targeted predation toward a victim.	Three-prong Cannon test applied; predatory conduct not met if not directed at a victim; OV 10 15 points reversed in dissent.

People v Cannon, 481 Mich 152 (2008) (articulated Cannon test: predatory conduct must be directed at a victim; run-of-the-mill planning not enough)
People v Kimble, 252 Mich App 269 (2002) (targeting a specific victim can constitute predatory conduct when followed to injure the victim)
People v Huston, 288 Mich App 387 (2010) ( Court of Appeals on OV 10 vulnerability vs. personal characteristics)
Robinson v City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1 (2010) (statutory interpretation—avoid surplusage; read in context)