*1 PEOPLE v KRISALDRICH PEOPLE v KYALLALDRICH 216402, August 9, 2000, Lansing. Docket No. 216403. Submitted at Decided May 18, 2001, appeal sought. at 9:05 A.M. Leave to Kyall by jury W. Kris M. Aldrich and Aldrich were convicted a in the Court, Meter, involuntary Saginaw J., M. Circuit Patrick of man- Aldrich, offender, slaughter. a Kris fourth-offense habitual was sen- thirty years imprisonment. Kyall tenced to fifteen to Aldrich sentence, received the same but as a third-offense habitual originally charged offender. The defendants had been in the alter- second-degree involuntary manslaughter native with or murder fifteen-year-old Pear, passenger after Jennifer a in an automobile by Aldrich, driven Kris died in a collision between Kris Aldrich’s occupied by Sherry automobile and an automobile Melissa and stop stop sign Musick. Kris Aldrich’s automobile had failed to at a yield right way Kyall the Musicks’ automobile. Aldrich, pickup truck, driving a had been Kris behind Aldrich’s stopped stop sign. prosecution’s automobile but had at the The the- ory drag racing of the case at trial was that the Aldriches were on a intoxicated, driving two-lane road while with Kris Aldrich in the oncoming they lane meant traffic. for The defendants denied that drag racing, were and Kris Aldrich testified that the brakes on his appealed appeals failed. The automobile defendants and their were consolidated. Appeals
The Court of held: Kyall Aldrich, by objection pres- withdrawing 1. trial an to the testimony police speed concerning entation of a officer’s calcula- tions, preserve appeal prosecutor failed to for his claim that the engaged presenting testimony misconduct inasmuch as the give should have known that the officer would invalid information. prosecutor’s provide 2. The failure to the defendants with a sta- report prepared by Sergeant Michigan
tistical William Brandt computer using program not State Police the Win Crash did consti- report discovery Sgt. disregarded tute a violation. Brandt had program generated message indicating an because the error by given the results were invalid the data entered Brandt. Material suppressed. The evidence was not defendants were not denied prosecutor’s provide report trial failure to them with a fair containing invalid information. prosecutor implied during closing argu- 3. To the extent that the *2 victim, designs ment that the defendants had sexual on the the prosecutor’s improper. prosecutor merely remarks were not The jury encouraged summarized the facts in evidence and to draw reasonable inferences from those facts. admitting
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in evi- that dence indicated that the Musicks had to be rescued from their burning automobile after collision. The evidence was relevant recklessness, probative to the issue of the defendants’ and its value by danger prejudice. outweighed was not of unfair admitting 5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in into postaccident photographs evidence of Kris Aldrich’s automobile photographs and the victim. The were offered to aid witnesses description their of the conditions of the victim and the automobile following the accident. performed 6. The results of blood alcohol tests on the defen- properly by pursuant dants’ blood were admitted the trial court to 257.625a(6)(e). provides if, 625a(6)(e) MCL Subsection that after an accident, of the driver a vehicle involved in the accident is trans- ported facility sample to a medical and a of the driver’s blood is treatment, withdrawn at the time for medical the results of a chem- sample ical of that are admissible civil or criminal proceeding presence to show the amount of alcohol or of con- person’s trolled substance or both in the blood. The defendants’ claim that the results of their blood alcohol tests were inadmissible because the were defendants not under arrest at the time of the rejected. By plain terms, 625a(6)(e) tests its subsection does not require subject Testimony that the of the test be under arrest. performed trial indicated that the defendants’ tests were for medi- Kyall pur- cal reasons. Aldrich was involved in the accident for poses 625a(6)(e) because, though of subsection even his vehicle vehicle, did not enter the intersection and strike another his con- logical duct was connected to the accident in a natural and manner. denying 7. The trial court did not err in the defendants’ motions acquittal charges second-degree for directed verdicts of of Contrary contention, murder. to the defendants’ there was suffi- support charges second-degree cient evidence of malice to of murder. Malice can be inferred from evidence that the defendants intentionally likely great set in motion a force to cause death or bodily Here, harm. there was evidence that the defendants inten- tionally act, drag racing committed an into an intersection while intoxicated, disregard life-endangering consequences inwas disregard and that was in wanton and wilful of the likelihood that tendency great the natural of such behavior was to cause death or bodily harm. jury by 8. None of the instruction errors asserted the defendants require reversal the defendants’ convictions. The instructions the gave regarding substantially trial court abandonment covered the requested seriously instructions that the defendants and did not impair ability effectively present their to a defense. Kris did Aldrich request regarding intervening (brake not an instruction cause fail- ure) give and the trial court’s failure to such an instruction did not plain affecting rights. amount to error Kris Aldrich’s substantial Kyall regard With to Aldrich’s claim that the trial court erred in fail- ing give requested concerning intervening cause, his instruction given adequately the instruction covered the substance of the requested Kyall instruction. The trial court’s instruction that presence enough implicate Aldrich’s mere was not him in the crime, responsibility required and that his for victim’s death activity accompanied that it have resulted from “common” unlawful required element, theory intent covered the defense Kyall participating drag Aldrich was not in a race at the time of the Kyall prejudiced by fatal collision. Aldrich was not the trial court’s *3 regard uncharged failure to instruct with to the offense of furnish- ing alcohol to a minor. propor- 9. Kris Aldrich’s sentence is not excessive because it is prior tionate to the seriousness of the crime and his record. Affirmed. Whttbeck, J., concurring, separately explain why wrote to Kris ground
Aldrich is not entitled to a new trial on the asserted that prosecutor discovery providing the committed a violation in not the Sgt. analysis. defendants with Brandt’s Win Crash To be entitled to prosecutor’s suppression evidence, a new trial on the basis of a of possessed a defendant must demonstrate that the state evidence defendant, possess favorable to the that the defendant did not evidence and could not it have obtained with reasonable dili- gence, prosecutor suppressed evidence, that the the favorable and defense, that had the evidence been disclosed to the a reasonable probability proceedings exists that the outcome of the would have allegedly suppressed been different. The evidence must be viewed trial, materiality in the context of the with determined from the played role evidence would have at trial had the defense known case, Sgt. of its existence and had access to it. In this Brandt’s Win analysis actually produced Crash never a valid result because the program Win Crash relies on measurements of vehicular travel on 246 Sgt. ground ground, for the Brandt estimated measurements ditch, portion Kris Aldrich’s automobile was airborne over a message indicating program generated that the an error speed program should was invalid and that the resultant calculated analysis Thus, Sgt. Win was not material be rerun. Brandt’s Crash provide prosecutor’s failure to the fairness of the trial and the suppression with the did not constitute a the defendants grant evidence that warrants the of a new trial. Prosecuting — — Improper Appeal. Attorneys Remarks at Trial 1. preserved improper Appeals, reviewing claim of The Court of when a by prosecutor trial, remarks a at a examines the remarks context was denied a fair and and determines whether the defendant object impartial trial; where a defendant fails to at trial to a improper by prosecutor, remark a the issue is reviewed claimed for plain rights. the defendant’s substantial error affected Arguments Prosecuting — Attorneys 2. at Trial. arguments A need not confine at trial to the blandest of all possible terms, may encourage but comment on the evidence and jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. — — Admissibility Appeal. 3. Evidence party opposing seeking preserve A the admission of evidence and evidentiary appellate object issue for review must at trial and objection specify ground appeal the same for that it asserts on 103[a][l]). (MRE — — Admissibility Appeal. 4. Evidence The decision whether to admit evidence is within the discretion of the appeal and will trial court not be disturbed on absent clear abuse discretion; only unpreju- an abuse of discretion is found if an person, considering acted, diced the facts on which the trial court say ruling made; would that there was no excuse for the a decision evidentiary question on a an close cannot be abuse of discretion. — — Admissibility Evidence 5. Relevance. Generally, trial; all relevant evidence is admissible at evidence is rele- any tendency vant if it has to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence probable probable to the action more or less than it relevant, evidence; however, would be without the even if evidence *4 may probative substantially outweighed if be excluded its value is by issues, danger prejudice, of unfair confusion of the mislead- jury, delay, time, presentation ing the undue waste of or needless (MRE 401). of cumulative evidence — — — Sdppression Appeal. 6. Criminal Law Evidence Motions for reviewing may ruling suppres- A court not disturb a trial court’s at a hearing ruling clearly erroneous; sion unless that where a trial question law, court’s decision concerned a mixed of fact and findings error, application court’s are reviewed for clear while its novo; evidentiary the law to the facts is reviewed de where an deci- discretion, lies within sion the trial court’s review is for abuse of discretion. Intoxicating — — 7. Liquors Automobile Accidents Blood Alcohol Test of Drivers. engaged drag A driver of an automobile in a race with another auto- mobile that has a collision with a third automobile not involved in purposes the race is a driver involved in the accident for provides statute that that the results of a chemical of a sample of blood withdrawn for medical treatment of an automobile driver involved an accident is admissible in civil or criminal
proceeding presence to show the amount of alcohol or the of a (MCL257.625a[6][e]). controlled substance in the driver’s blood — — — Appeal. 8. Law Trial Criminal Directed Verdicts Appeals, appeal ruling The Court of in an from a trial court’s aon verdict, motion for a directed reviews the record de novo to deter- presented by prosecutor, mine whether the evidence viewed in light prosecutor, persuade most favorable to the could rational trier of fact that the essential elements of the crime charged proved beyond were a reasonable doubt. Second-Degree — 9. Homicide Murder. second-degree The offense of murder consists of a death caused justification an act of the defendant with malice and without or (MCL 750.317). excuse Second-Degree — — 10. Homicide Murder Malice. support second-degree Malice sufficient to a conviction of murder can intentionally be inferred from evidence that the defendant set in likely great bodily harm; motion a force to cause death or second- degree require kill, murder does not an actual intent to harm or but only disregard the intent to do an act that is in obvious of life- endangering consequences (MCL750.317). — — Jury Appeal 11. Criminal Law Instructions Jury appeal entirety instructions are reviewed on in their to determine requiring occurred; if error reversal even if the instructions are imperfect, required long somewhat reversal is not as as the instruc- fairly presented sufficiently pro- tions the issues to be tried and rights. tected the defendant’s *5 Attorney General, Thomas Granholm, M. Jennifer Casey, Thomas, D. Pros- General, Michael L. Solicitor Attorney, ecuting Boes, M. Assistant Pros- and Janet Attorney, people. ecuting for the Joseph Booker), Appellate (by for Defender C. State Kris M. Aldrich. Kyall Brisbois, for W.Aldrich.
William A. and Kelly, P.J., Before: M.J. Collins, Whttbeck JJ. M. Aldrich and M. P.J. Defendants Kris J. Kelly,
Kyall charged originally with second- W.Aldrich were alternatively, degree with murder, 750.317,and, MCL manslaughter involuntary manslaughter or committed Following jury a vehicle, with a motor MCL 750.321. involuntary defendants were convicted of trial, both manslaughter. Kris Aldrich was sentenced as an habit- thirty years’ offender, offense,1 ual fourth to fifteen to Kyall imprisonment. sentenced as an Aldrich was thirty to fifteen to offender, offense,2 habitual years’ third appeal imprisonment. Defendants now as of appeals right. have been consolidated for Their review. We affirm.
I. FACTS involuntary manslaughter convictions Defendants’ during that occurred a stem from two-car collision drag defendants, brothers,3 between who are on race 1 MCL 769.12.
2 MCL 769.11. 3 Kyall twenty-one years question. the incident in was old at the time of twenty years Kris was old. op Opinion the Court May evening 6, 1998.The victim was a fifteen-
year-old girl, passenger Fear, Jennifer who was a Kris Aldrich’svehicle at the time of the collision. The prosecutor’s theory of the case was that defendants picked up bought Jennifer, and consumed some whis- key, drag speeds up racing then went to one hun- hour, miles an when defendant Aldrich, dred Kris stop sign vehicle, with Jennifer in his ran a and col- causing vehicle, lided with another Jennifer’s death. *6 for Counsel defendant Kris Aldrich conceded that drinking engaging defendants were in “horse- play,” speed including exceeding argued limit, the but any driving that reckless had ended at the time of the accident and that the accident was the result of brake Kyall failure. Defendant Aldrich also claimed that driving reckless had the ceased before accident. many they At trial, witnesses testified that observed drag racing defendants down a two-lane stretch of May approximately 6, 1998, Roosevelt Road on at 8:30 racing P.M. Defendants’ vehicles4 were side side thereby along occupying Road, Roosevelt the whole roadway including oncoming the lane reserved for occupying traffic. Kris Aldrich’s vehicle was the lane oncoming reserved for traffic. Witnesses indicated traveling “extremely” vehicles the were fast, speeds approaching ninety miles an hour. Kris ducking Aldrich’svehicle was observed in and out oncoming colliding traffic lane to avoid with vehi- traveling opposite cles in the direction. approached
The vehicles the intersection of stop sign Roosevelt and Hemlock.5 There is a at this Kyall driving driving Kris Aldrich was a blue Beretta and Aldrich was pickup a red truck. paved. gravel; This section of Roosevelt Hemlock is Road; for vehicles on traveling intersection Roosevelt way. has the Witnesses right Hemlock testified approached race was as the vehicles drag ongoing mother, the intersection. Melissa Musick and her Sherry Musick, were Hemlock Road traveling along approaching the intersection at Roosevelt Road. As they passed through intersection, Kris Aldrich’s stop stop sign Beretta failed to at the and collided spun with the Musicks’ vehicle. The Musicks’ vehicle up upside out of control “and ended down in the ditch, up on fire.”6 Kris Aldrich’s vehicle ended in the roadway. field alongside Fear, pas- Jennifer in Kris Aldrich’s senger vehicle, was killed in the acci- body dent and her was found outside lying Beretta. Kyall Aldrich
Although drag racing denied and told police that he had been llk miles driving behind his brother at the time accident, witnesses testified that defendants’ vehicles engaged were still in the just race before the In drag fact, accident. witness Nicholas Scoles observed defendants’ vehicles racing before the occurred, just seconds accident as the *7 approached vehicles the intersection of Hemlock and Roosevelt Roads. Musick, Melissa the driver of the vehicle that collided with vehicle, Kris Aldrich’s con firmed that in the accident, seconds before the defen dants’ vehicles were speeding along roadway, side by side, Kyall she although admitted that Aldrich’s stop stop vehicle did at the sign. police
Kris Aldrich told at the scene that Jennifer had been driving his vehicle at the time of the acci- 6 Fortunately, pull burning onlookers were able to the Musicks from the transported hospital vehicle. The Musicks were then to the for treatment. Aldrich sitting
dent and that he was the back seat. He also police that he could not remember if he had been told racing. drag Neither defendant could remember they going where were when the accident occurred. beginning At Kris Aldrich admitted that trial, ques- night around 7:00 P.M. on the of the incident in Kyall, drinking tion, he, and Jennifer had been whis- key Pepsi. mixed with At around 8:30 P.M., the three Kyall’s go decided to to house. Kris and Jennifer took Kyall driving, Beretta, with Kris and drove the red pickup According driving truck. he Kris, was on fifty-five sixty approximately at Roosevelt or miles an attempted pass Kyall’s hour. Kris testified that he pickup pulled Kyall truck, red but back in behind appeared. Subsequently, Kyall when another vehicle approximately twenty slowed down to miles an hour signaled pull alongside him, and for Kris to and that stopping the two conversed about at a convenience got stated store. Kris that he then “took off first and Kyall’s in front of car.” testified Kris that as he approached approximately fifty intersection, stop hour, miles an he started to slow down for a pedal sign, right but that “the brake went to the floor stopping and wasn’t no more.” He then entered being intersection and collided with the vehicle driven Melissa Musick.7 hearing jury evidence,
After the above con- involuntary manslaughter. victed both defendants of prosecutor presented testimony Gary Dudicz, The the rebuttal an expert (including systems), in the area of automobile mechanics brake who testified that he had and that the brakes examined Beretta should functioning properly have been at the time of the accident. Dudicz also adequate supply fluid, testified that the vehicle had an of brake that his inspection up fairly leaks, pads turned no and that the brake were new good condition. *8 App 246 Mich 101 110 Opinion of the Court thirty-year sentences. Defendants received fifteen- They appeal right. as of
H. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
A. PRESERVATION OF THE ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
prosecutorial
This Court reviews claims of
miscon-
examining
case,
context,
duct case
the remarks in
to determine whether the defendant received a fair
impartial
People Bahoda,
trial.
v
B. PRESENTATION OF DEPUTY KEVIN CAMPBELL’S TESTIMONY
Kyall
argues
Defendant
Aldrich
it was
improper
prosecutor
present
testimony
for the
Deputy
Campbell
Kevin
because the
Deputy Campbell
known
should have
would
*9
present
Specifically, Kyallpoints
invalid information.8
Deputy Campbell’s
to
concession on cross-exami-
speed
ambiguities
nation that certain
attended his
cal-
Kyall
points
prosecutor’s presen-
culations.
also
to the
Sergeant
Michigan
tation of
William Brandt of the
opinions
speed
concerning
Police,
State
whose
con-
Campbell.
Kyall
tradicted those of
However,
with-
objection
presentation
Deputy
drew his
to the
Campbell’s testimony because he wanted to refer to
Deputy Campbell’s speed
during closing
calculations
argument.9
has,
He
therefore, waived this claim of
appeal.
may
objection
error on
A defendant
not waive
an
to
issue before the trial court and then raise the
appeal. People Fetterley,
issue as an error on
App
(1998).
511;
A ahas to “make disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known negate guilt to the that tends to mitigates degree accused or of the offense[.]” 3.8(d). dispute any MRPC There is no in this case that challenge prosecution’s presenta Defendant Kris Aldrich does not Deputy Campbell’s testimony appeal. tion of on 9 During closing argument, Kyall Deputy counsel for Aldrich referred to Campbell’s testimony arguing jury prosecution’s to the case weak. was by reports prepared for the case law or test results subject discovery. How- enforcement officers were attempt Sgt. generate ever, Brandt’s an accurate report in this case was unsuccessful. There is no dis- pute computer printout that the contained invalid test by disregarded Sgt. results and was therefore Brandt. prosecutor’s sup- Hence, it seems the witness did not press disregarded Instead, material evidence. he inva- evidence. In event, lid we cannot see how defen- prosecutor’s dants were denied a fair trial fail- provide report containing ure to them with a invalid information.
D. CLOSING ARGUMENT
challenge
prosecutor’s implication
Defendants
during closing
they
argument
designs
that
had sexual
evening
ques-
on the victim on the
of the incident in
object
prosecutor’s
tion. Defendants did not
to the
prosecutor’s
remarks below. A review of the
remarks,
prosecutor
merely
in context, reveals that the
was
summarizing
encouraging
the facts in evidence and
jury
to draw reasonable inferences from those
improper.
facts. This was not
A
need not
argument
possible
confine
to the “blandest of all
may argue
terms,” but has wide latitude and
the evi-
People
dence and all reasonable inferences from it.
v
Marji,
(1989);
180 Mich
525, 538;
Opinion
of the Court
EVIDENTIARY
m.
ISSUES
A.
THE
AND
REVIEW
PRESERVATION OF
ISSUE
STANDARD OF
evidentiary
preserve
review,
party
To
an
issue for
object
the admission of evidence must
opposing
specify
trial
ground
objection
the same
for
that it
on appeal.
People Grant,
asserts
MRE
v
103(a)(1);
Mich 535, 545, 553;
People
At a the hearing regarding evidence of the and evi- burning Musicks’ vehicle by dence of heroic rescue efforts that onlookers in the being pulled resulted Musicks from their burn- vehicle, the trial ing court ruled that the evidence was relevant because it demonstrated the “force and vio- jury lence” of the collision and could assist in defendants’ recklessness assessing the incident. additionally The court probative ruled that the value substantially by of the evidence was not outweighed any possible prejudice. However, the court cautioned prosecutor against “overusing” evidence.
Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible at
trial. Starr, supra at 497. Evidence is relevant if it has
any tendency to make the existence of a
fact
is
consequence
probable
to the action more
or less
probable than it would be without the
MRE
evidence.
401; People v Crawford,
376, 388;
458 Mich
582 NW2d
Under this
(1998).
definition,
broad
evidence is
helpful
admissible if it is
in throwing light
on
point. People
material
v Kozlow,
App 517,
524-525;
We with the trial court that evidence regard- the condition ing of the Musicks’ vehicle was relevant jury’s determination of facts at issue this case such as defendants’ recklessness or carelessness speed and the vehicles the time of the impact. Moreover, defendants have not convinced us relevancy substantially of the evidence was *12 People
Opinion of the Court they or that by any prejudicial effect outweighed nature of the by the cumulative prejudiced were evidence. Musicks’ rescue the evidence of the regard
With
jury
to hear the
vehicle, a
is entitled
burning
from
People v Sholl,
the matter in issue.
“complete stoiy” of
reh den 454
742;
(1996),
With
to Kris
regard
the victim
admissibility
photographs
to the
pho-
vehicle, we have reviewed the
damaged
and Kris’
they
are
question
and conclude
tographs
inherently prejudicial. Nor does
neither
nor
shocking
were
appear
photographs
it
from the record that the
jury. People
inflaming
offered with the intention
632;
(1978).
IV. ADMISSIBILITY OP BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS
*13
A. PRESERVATION OF THE ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
To preserve an evidentiary issue for
a
review,
party
opposing
admission of
object
evidence must
at
specify
trial and
the same ground
objection
for
that it
asserts on appeal. MRE 103(a)(1); Grant, supra at
545, 553; Griffin, supra at 44. On the basis of the
objections
by
made
defendants at
trial,
appears
it
unless indicated later in
opinion,
this
that the eviden-
tiary
issues raised
defendants
preserved
are
for
appellate review.10 A reviewing
may
court
not disturb
a trial court’s
a
ruling
suppression
at
hearing unless
that ruling
clearly
is
People
erroneous.
v Burrell, 417
Mich 439, 448;
trial. People 257.625a(6)(e)
B. MCL regarding the various claims raise Defendants admissibility results, alcohol test their blood of involving statutory including construction claims statutory primaiy 257.625a(6)(e). rule of The MCL give effect to the and to ascertain is construction People Legislature. Borchard-Ruhland, v intent of (1999). determine To 597 NW2d 278, 284; language Legislature’s we first examine intent, language statute is Id. “If the the statute. applied unambiguous, as written should be the statute permitted. judicial However, if is not construction may go statutory ambiguous, language court the beyond Leg statute to determine words of the 92, Oliver, intent.” islature’s (2000). 96; 617 NW2d the results claim that extent that defendants
To the inadmissible tests were alcohol of their blood *14 arrest at the time were not under defendants because reject we tested, levels were their blood alcohol MCL Code, Vehicle 625a of the claim. Section pertinent part follows: in as 257.625a,reads respect provisions apply to chemi- following with (6) The analysis person’s . . . of a blood tests and cal in If, accident, of a vehicle involved (e) an the driver after facility transported a sam- a and to medical the accident medi- ple at that time for blood is withdrawn of the driver’s analysis of that sam- treatment, of a chemical cal the results any proceeding to ple civil or criminal are admissible presence a controlled of amount of alcohol or show the alleged, person’s the time blood at or both the substance person or had had offered regardless the been of whether App 246 facility person per- The refused chemical test. medical or analysis forming the chemical shall disclose the results attorney prosecuting requests to a who prosecutionf.] results for use in a criminal Supreme recently “only per- Our Court ruled that purview sons who have been arrested fall within the implied of the consent Borchard-Ruhland, statute.” supra citing 257.625a(6)(b). 285, MCL257.625cand construing provision However, the Court was presumption the statute that sets forth the of consent testing, provision § 625c, and the that establish- rights suspect, es 625a(6)(b), notice subsection expressly only per- both of which concern sons who have been “arrested.” In contrast, subsec- 625a(6)(e) pro- tion does not it arrest, mention and admissibility vides for the of blood alcohol test proceeding,” results in or “civil criminal where the blood on which test was run was drawn “for medical treatment” from a driver in” “involved an By plain accident. its terms, therefore, subsection 6(e) legal concerns tests done on blood drawn for not responsibility purposes, reasons, but for medical is not limited to those under arrest.
Next, defendants claim that their blood alcohol test 625a(6)(e) results were inadmissible under subsection prove because failed to that the blood tests in the instant case were conducted for medical treatment. Defendants failed to raise this issue below. they Because failed to trial, raise the issue at this preserved appellate issue is not for review.
Morey,
(1998),
152, 163;
Finally, Kyall claims that because he was not in” accident, i.e., “involved his vehicle did not into with the vehicle, come contact Musicks’ his blood alcohol tests were inadmissible under subsec- rejected by 625a(6)(e). tion A similar claim was this supra Oliver, Court in at 96-98.In the defen- Oliver, Jeep driving Wagoneer, pushing dant, a was a small by Honda driven his friend down the westbound lane Jeep bump of US-12. The defendant’s would along Honda, which would then coast for awhile. Jeep down, When the Honda would slow would bump again being bumped the Honda. After Jeep, the Honda Honda, driver lost control of the path oncoming veered into the traffic, of and stuck argument concerning We note that Kris makes no foundational requirements, alleged thereof, concerning lapse or the lack or of time test, perhaps eschewing between the accident and the blood alcohol those People Wager, 118; argument light lines of of v 460 Mich 594 NW2d People Campbell, App 490; (1999), (1999). NW2d 114 Kyall appeal that his was To the extent claims on blood alcohol test performed time, Supreme we not within a reasonable note that our Court recently purposes admitting has ruled that for the results of blood alco performed driver, requirement hol tests there is no be on that such tests given Wager, supra delay within a reasonable time. at 122-124. The approximately 31/2 the accident and the hours between test bears on the admissibility. weight evidence, not its *16 246
Opinion of the Court another vehicle, its driver. The killing defendant stopped put off the highway, his head out of the win- dow, looked back toward accident, and then drove off, hiding Jeep his behind a friend’s shed. He subsequently was discovered and charged with failure stop at an accident injury, serious MCL involving 257.617. appeal,
On the defendant that argued he was not accident, required by “involved in” the as subsection “because 617(1), his vehicle was not in contact with the Honda when the Honda swerved onto the right immediately shoulder before it veered into the east- bound lane and struck the decedent’s vehicle.” Oliver, supra rejected at 96. This Court the defendant’s claim: reject defendant’s contention a vehicle
[W]e cannot be “involved in” physi- an accident if it does not strike or cally reported touch another automobile. There are no phrase cases in this state that construe the “involved in” as it 257.617(1); 9.2317(1). is used in MCL MSA Our construc- phrase governed by tion of statutory the rules of construction.
[*] [*] [*] phrase The “involved in” is not defined in the statute. Therefore, dictionary we look to for its definition. The rel- dictionary evant “impli- definitions of “involved” include cated,” affair, esp. way likely and “concerned in some in a danger unpleasantness.” to cause or Random House Web- College Dictionary (2d ed, ster’s 1997). According to the plain meaning “involved,” of the term defendant’s conduct 257.617(1); fafls within 9.2317(1). MCL MSA The presented Jeep pushed evidence that defendant’s Honda, power, which could not run on its own down the highway approximately fifty-seven miles an hour. The traveling Jeep driver of a vehicle behind defendant’s testi- Jeep bumper fied that he witnessed the strike the rear just began Honda before the Honda to veer off the road out of control. Alexander testified that it was the impact Jeep begin of defendant’s that caused him to to lose of the Honda. control clearly played a
The evidence indicated that defendant despite part in the accident the fact that his vehicle did not We strike or come into contact with another vehicle. con in” clude that defendant was “involved the accident because implicated that he was in or the evidence demonstrated logical connected with the accident in a or substantial man need not have caused the accident ner .... Defendant [Oliver, order to have been “involved in” the accident. supra omitted).] (citations *17 at 96-98 phrase Oliver Court construed the Although the provision in” contained in another “involved the statute the failure to Code, addressing Vehicle stop injury accident, at a serious MCL 257.617(1), and contained in Oliver reasoning applies equal with force to the term “involved in” contained We, therefore, in the Oli- 625a(6)(e). adopt subsection analysis.12 Oliver, Like the defendant ver Court’s 12 acknowledge holding Detroit, 439, We in Robinson v 462 Mich 456-457, 468; (2000), (2000). NW2d den 463 1211 In reh Robinson, liability injuries involving a a case for sustained as a result of police fleeing vehicle, Supreme chase of a our Court construed the motor exception immunity, governmental vehicle MCL 691.1405. The motor exception requires plaintiff’s injuries negli a from” vehicle “result gent operation government Court, of a vehicle. The Robinson without plaintiffs satisfy elaboration, much that the could not determined police “resulting language pursuing “where vehicle from” of the statute fleeing physically did not hit the car or otherwise force it off the road into object.” Robinson, supra 456-457, another vehicle 468. Robinson is or present narrowly distinguishable from the case. The Robinson decision exception immunity governmental the motor vehicle construed liability inju police fleeing involved chases of vehicles and the issue of for Here, whether, Code, under ries that resulted. the issue the Vehicle Kyall though was “involved in” an accident even his vehicle did not come above, into contact with the Musicks’ vehicle. For the reasons set forth Kyall Oliver, supra we was “involved in” the accident. believe at 96-98.
Opinion Court Kyall clearly played part Aldrich in this case in the despite accident at issue the fact that his vehicle did not strike or come into contact with the Musicks’ prosecutor presented vehicle. The evidence to indi- cate that in the seconds accident, before the defen- engaged high- dants’ vehicles continued to be in a speed drag fact, race. In in the seconds before the speeding along collision, defendants’ vehicles were thereby occupying side side down Road, Roosevelt roadway including the whole the lane reserved for Kyall’s oncoming though stop traffic. Even vehicle did stop sign at the at the intersection of Roosevelt and Roads, Hemlock he was involved in the accident because his conduct was connected to the accident logical a natural and In fact, manner. had defendants engaged high-speed drag not been in a race, this acci- light dent would never have occurred. In of the Oliver Kyall’s decision, claim that he was not involved in the accident must fail.
V. DIRECTED VERDICT A. PRESERVATION OF THE ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW *18 prosecution’s At the close of the case, defendants second-degree moved for directed verdicts on the charges, preserving appel- murder thus this issue for reviewing late review. When a trial court’s decision on a motion for a directed verdict, this Court reviews the record de novo to determine whether the evidence presented by prosecutor, light viewed most prosecutor, persuade favorable to the could a rational trier of fact that the essential elements of the crime charged proved beyond were a reasonable doubt. People 123 124-125; 600 App 112, Mich Mayhew, v 236
People 370 (1999). NW2d
B. SECOND-DEGREE MURDER
of
murder consists
second-degree
The offense of
by an
death,
caused
“(1)
(2)
elements:
following
malice,
with
without
defendant,
(3)
(4)
of the
act
Id.,
People Goecke,
v
quoting
or excuse.”
justification
NW2d
Defen
463-464;
(1998).
442,
457 Mich
evidence
there was insufficient
dants claim
of mal
of malice. The element
the element
regarding
to cause
kill,
as “the intent to
the intent
ice is defined
in wan
bodily harm,
the intent to do an act
or
great
that the nat
and wilful
of
likelihood
disregard
ton
is to cause death or
tendency of such behavior
ural
125.
bodily
464; Mayhew, supra
at
at
harm.” Id.
great
inferred
for
murder can be
second-degree
Malice
“intentionally set in
evidence that the defendant
from
bodily
likely
great
a force
to cause death or
motion
App 459, 462;
People Djordjevic,
harm.”
v
NW2d 610
The offense of
(1998).
second-degree
harm or
require
murder “does not
an actual intent to
only
do an act that is in obvious
kill, but
the intent to
consequences.” May
disregard
life-endangering
Goecke, supra at 466.
hew, supra at 125. See also
Here, there was evidence to indicate that defendants
act,
very
intentionally
drag racing
committed an
intoxicated,
while
speeds into an intersection
high
life-endangering
conse
disregard
that was
and wilful
quences
disregard
and that was in “wanton
tendency of
likelihood that
the natural
such
bodily
cause death or
harm.”
great
behavior
[was]
supra
at 125. See also
464; Mayhew,
Id. at
694;
In sum, in evidence most prosecution, favorable to the as we are constrained to context, do this we believe that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that the second-degree essential elements of murder, includ- ing proved beyond malice, were a reasonable doubt. Id.
VI. JURY INSTRUCTIONS
A. PRESERVATION OF THE ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
jury
entirety
We review
instructions
their
requiring
People
determine if error
reversal occurred.
App
Brown,
v
239 735, 746;
B. ALLEGED ERRORS INSTRUCTIONAL Defendants first claim that the trial court should requested, given have their modified abandonment instruction. We have reviewed the instructions entirety given their by and conclude that the instructions substantially the trial court covered the instruction requested by defendants and the trial court’s failure seriously give to impair the abandonment instruction did not ability effectively present defendants’ to People given Moldenhauer, defense. 210 Mich App (1995). NW2d9 158, 159-160;533 regard was
With to Kris’ claim that because there stop stop sign he to at the evidence that failed failure, of brake the trial court should have because jury intervening cause. Kris did not instructed on request such an instruction below and has not shown give trial failure to such an instruction that the court’s plain affecting amounted to error Kris’ substantial supra regard rights. 774. With to Carines, 761-764, Kyall’s failing give claim that the trial court erred requested intervening cause, his instruction on adequately given instructions covered substance Kyall. requested by of the instruction The trial court’s Kyall’s presence enough was not instruction that mere implicate responsi- that his crime, him in the bility required that it have for the victim’s death activity accompa- unlawful resulted from “common” required element, intent covered nied theory Kyall participating in a was not defense drag at the time of the fatal collision. race Having jury reviewed the instructions in their entirety, Kyail we do not believe prejudiced was by the trial court’s failure jury to instruct on the of uncharged offense alcohol to a furnishing minor.
VIL SENTENCING
Lastly, Kris Aldrich
that his
argues
sentence for
involuntary manslaughter
is excessive. Provided that
permissible
considered, appellate
factors are
review
prison
sentences is limited to whether the sentenc
court abused its
ing
discretion.
v Coles, 417
523, 550;
vm. CONCLUSION found Having no error requiring reversal, we con- clude that defendants’ convictions and sentences must be affirmed. J., concurred.
Collins, Concurrence J. Whitbeck, (concurring). J. I concur in the result Whitbeck, opinion appeals. sepa- in the lead reaches both I write rately explain why, my opinion, in Kris Aldrich is not new trial entitled to a after he learned that the police produced analysis purportedly had a Win Crash demonstrating relatively driving that he was at a low speed at the time the crash in this case. Because components engineering the scientific, statistical, and investigation grow important of crime ever more way prosecutors try analyze their cases, I whether prosecutor discovery committed a violation that hope entitles Kris Aldrich to a new trial with the analysis prove this will useful in other cases.
i. basic facts potential discovery problem To understand the requires understanding theory this case the defense analysis and the nature of the Win Crash at issue. Kris Aldrich claimed that the collision between the Chev- driving rolet Beretta he was and the Chevrolet driving Lumina Melissa Musick was occurred at rela- tively speeds low because his brakes failed. Thomas expert testifying an Bereza, accident reconstruction for the defense, conducted a Win Crash concluded from the condition the Lumina was in fol- lowing crash, as well as evidence, from other highest possible speed Kris Aldrich’s car could traveling impact thirty- have been at the time of was likely six miles an hour and that it was more that he slowly. driving *22 was more The elicited from expert Sergeant his accident witness, reconstruction analy- Brandt, William that he run Win had Crash speed sis and that he could not determine the driving which Kris Aldrich was at the time the colli- 246 by Whitbeck, J. Concurrence Joseph cross-examination, During occurred. sion lawyer, asked Brandt Scorsone, Sgt. Kris Aldrich’s analysis: Win Crash about the
Q: [Y]ou, fact, through program and ran the Win Crash up results, is that fair statement? came with some [a] attempted program, on the A: I to run a Win Crash based being put was into it. information that Q: you on the error that the machine What can elaborate punched up? they “spin getting was what call a calc.”
A: The error I was equates manual, And as I read the the error to because from rest, impact [sic], to the final the Baretta when it went air- ditch, ditch, go sliding it over that didn’t down the borne you went over. in the —the—one of the check boxes that So before, you is, have I believe I mentioned have the skid trajectory you end and have the —a roll out.
Well, up skidding we don’t have a roll out. We have a to point and then the vehicle went airborne. But there’s say program no area in to the vehicle went and airborne speed, program figure have the out that based on dis- travel, type tance and tell it to determine the speed and such. speed
So what I do is I neces- needed to calculated sary they get the ditch. And have a check box for across path-end velocity. basically input pro- a So I had to into the impact gram air- the skid distance from to where it went borne, path-end velocity, give a and it and then have it just gave me error. this get specific again, algorithms So I can’t into the I— itself, basically
program program I but the didn’t like what had in there and there was an error and these results said good. are no convictions, defendants’ the trial court
Following testimony took additional from Brandt con- Sgt. In junction with the defense motions for a new trial. posttrial testimony, his Brandt said that he ran Sgt. copy his own Win Crash after receiving *23 People v Aldrich by Concurrence J. Whitbeck, expert analysis defense Bereza’s Win Crash to deter- mine whether he would receive the same results for impact velocity. Sgt. impact the Brandt stated that the velocity analysis his Win Crash calculated for the plus Lumina was 58.7 miles an hour, or minus 15.3 plus hour, miles an and 40.6 miles an hour, or minus hour, miles an for the Beretta. In other on words, 10.5 provided pro- the basis of the data he the Win Crash gram, Sgt. Brandt concluded the car Kris Aldrich was driving traveling was somewhere between 30.1 and 51.1 miles an hour at the time it struck the Lumina. range encompassed This Bereza’s estimate that Kris driving Aldrich was at 35 miles an hour or less at the impact. Although printout time of he had the of his analysis Win Crash with him when he testified trial, Sgt. provided Brandt conceded that he never copy apparently pinning defense with a it,of his fail- analysis ure to turn over the on defense counsel’s fail- during ure to ask for it cross-examination.
Sgt. provided copy analy- Brandt of the Win Crash printout analysis, sis to the trial court. The entitled Project Report,” “WinCrash first lists measurements Using taken from the scene of the accident. those analysis diagrams data, determines and various angles trajectories and the Lumina and Beretta were following up leading Page to the crash. five lists the “Linear Momentum Results” for the two vehicles, i.e., speeds up impact. leading at various times to On page, Sgt. the sixth consistent with Brandt’s testi- analysis mony, indicates, “The results are useless “Spin when true. Rerun!” and that there was Calc applied Error” that to the Beretta. attorneys present hearing
Each of the three at the approach arguing took a different whether the 246 J. Concurrence Whitbeck, and to the defense given have been analysis should on the to disclose would have what effect that failure empha- a new trial. Scorsone postverdict motion for on Brandt were prosecutor Sgt. that the sized purposes prosecution, “team” for the same duty pro- had a meant that the which attorney analysis. Kyall argued Aldrich’s duce the report, indicating corroborated Bereza’s *24 Scorsone, precede the crash. Like that a race did not had an prosecutor obligation he also that the argued a analysis, already made having to turn over the the failure to disclose the proper demand, and jury opportunity of an to con- analysis deprived the that, contended under prosecutor sider it. The analy- the Newhouse,1 prove v the defense had to newly discovered evidence that would affect sis was However, of the trial. to the according outcome prosecutor, concerning the evidence any possibility would not have came out at trial and because, Sgt. of the outcome of the trial as affecting analysis failed to reach a con- explained, Brandt impact speed Sgt. clusion on the at the time rely opinion not on the results to form his Brandt did the crash. surrounding on the circumstances The trial court then ruled from the bench:
People Newhouse, Michigan Appeals 300, 1981, and v necessary many cases, other recite the four factors newly evidence which establish a claim of discovered would entitle the defendant to a new trial. may
First,
newly
Second, it
not be
it must be
discovered.
Third,
cumulative.
it is such as to render a different result
probable
fourth,
And
the defendant must not have
at retrial.
People Newhouse,
App 380;
been able with reasonable been able to duce this evidence trial.
During discovery demand, the defendant’s the defendants request for, alia, made a inter of all scientific or [“]results expert tests, including reports, other memorandums, file reports case, pos- made in connection with this within the session, custody prosecution, or control of the the exis- may tence of which is known or become known to the prosecution.” quote pertinent part. End of particular case,
In this the Court determines that the Peo- ple report, the Win program, Crash was not even —that 26th, 1998, literally existence until sometime on October day Sergeant before Brandt testified. Sergeant And when Brandt came to following court the day, provided copy has said he was not report, accept Mr. Brandt’s and I’ll that as true. When Ser- geant stand, indicated, Brandt was on the among witness he things, expert other that he did not believe that an could up speed, given come with reliable certain lack of important adequate measurements or measurements which Sergeant Brandt testified into this case. This all came out on direct examination. He said that the measurements conducted the investi- gators scene, at the crime from department, the sheriff’s simply adequate, were not specifics why and he detailed in
they weren’t. He also testified that there were three tire marks that could not have been related to accident, this motor vehicle persons and that they other who would indicate that did, to the extent that persons, those other including expert, another part speed utilized those marks as of a cal- culation, they be, wrong,” empha- would “dead and then again give speed sized that he could a reliable demonstra- [sic, tion determination]. Now, particular expert it’s instructive in this case that the specifically state, during testimony, did his that he ran a program,
Win Crash pro- that there was an error gram. And, quite frankly, if defense counsel had asked to program point, they examine a Win Crash at that all had to do was ask. J. by Concurrence Whitbeck, opinion, where in this Court’s not a situation
So this is time newly It was known at the evidence. this is discovered testimony run a Win had Sergeant Brandt’s he] [that erroneous, and, program, results were and that the Crash exactly has duplicates what the Court quite frankly, that is, indicates; today report and that his and what heard not reliable. the results were producing program in the Win Crash I don’t know how produce evi- enabled defense counsel to court could have probably which, have rendered a different “. . . would dence impeachment— best, Even at if it were result in this case.” opin- it, imagine in this Court’s I how it could and can’t be— law, cannot, be the impeaching under the evidence ion— evidence, trial; not a it must be substantive basis for new just it impeachment And I don’t see here. evidence. newly B, A, would not so, discovered. And it
And it’s not probably a result at trial. have rendered different DECISION
II. THE TRIAL COURT’S and the The makes clear that record newly addressing relied on case law trial court both Kris Aldrich’s motion discovered evidence because the Win Crash for a new trial claimed newly Nevertheless, evidence. was discovered plainly indicates transcript postverdict motion parties appeared hearing, time the at the that, to his legal ground Kris had added new Aldrich discovery violation. Whether motion for a new trial: a attorney, should have filed a Aldrich, Kris his through shift in direction to bring new written motion to this Rather, issue here. trial court’s attention is not at attorney made this argument because Kris Aldrich’s that interests me explicitly hearing, at the the issue so *26 133 by Whitbeck, Concurrence J. prosecutor this concurrence is whether the writing a discovery committed violation.2
III. DISCOVERY VIOLATION
to Brady
prosecutors
Pursuant
v Maryland,3
have a
duty to disclose
constitutional4
evidence
to guilt
punishment,”5
“material either
or to
including
impeachment
duty
evidence.6 This
to disclose
regardless
remains7
prosecutor
whether
has
or
good
bad intentions8 in
evidence
withholding
police
even if
fail
give
pros-
to
evidence to the
Thus,
case,
prosecutor
ecutor.9
in this
whether
actually knew that
Brandt
Sgt.
had
the Win
generated
2
finding
alleged discovery
When
court does
a
a trial
not make
on an
violation,
approach
pros
determining
this Court’s modem
to
whether the
unconstitutionally
suppressed
ecutor
evidence has been to remand the
People Lester,
262,
App
282-283;
v
case to the trial court. See
232 Mich
591
(1998). However,
presided
judge
NW2d 267
the trial court
who
in this
case, Judge
colleague
Though
is now an esteemed
on
Court.
this
Meter,
a
judge
likely
assigned
new
to
a
would
be able
address
remand
to deal with
deftly,
judge
insight
this issue
the new
would lack the
into the case that
Judge
importantly,
opinion
repre
would
have. More
does not
this
Meter
majority’s view,
sent
which allows this
to be an academic
unnecessary.
exercise, making remand
3
Maryland,
Brady
83;
1194;
(1963).
v
373 US
83 S Ct
Concurrence Whitbeck, in whether Kris difference makes no analysis Crash Brady. under to a new trial be entitled Aldrich would that, to earn interpreted to mean That case has been must demonstrate trial, a defendant a new defen possessed favorable to the evidence (1) the state he possess could the evidence nor dant; (2) did not that he (3) diligence; reasonable himself with have obtained it evidence; suppressed prosecution the favorable that the defense, a disclosed to the (4) the evidence been that had pro probability that the outcome of exists reasonable different.[10] ceedings would have been data possessed the that the state question There is no pos it Crash and that in the Win entered produced. it Brandt is disputed Sgt. result sessed the trial, he conceded that he and, of the state an agent per However, my from analysis. produced had aspects of this case one of the more difficult spective, analysis gener the Win Crash whether determining is meaning evidence within the ated was favorable Whitley, In the United Kyles first element. Brady’s commentary on interpreted the Supreme Court States in United States v evidence” contained “favorable material, “favorable evidence is Bagley,12 to mean that suppression results from its and constitutional error a reasonable ‘if there is government, probability that, had the evidence been disclosed proceeding would have defense, the result ”13 Kyles Court went on to been different.’ The explain:
[10] Lester, supra at 281-282.
[11] Kyles, supra at 433. Bagley, Kyles, supra supra. at 433, quoting Bagley, supra at 682. by Whitbeck, J. Concurrence question
The is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, trial, but whether in its absence he a fair received worthy resulting understood as a trial in a verdict of confi- probability” dence. A “reasonable of a different result accordingly evidentiary government’s sup- shown when the pression “undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.”!14) reasoning
This is somewhat circular that it relies Brady on the fourth element of the test to define ques- evidence, what constitutes favorable a threshold explanation Kyles tion in the first element. This helps subject to narrow the class of evidence to the *28 discovery pieces rule to those of evidence that are likely to make a trial fair. Evidence immaterial to the subject fair conduct or result of a trial are not to the Brady interpret approach required Thus, rule. I the Kyles allegedly sup- under to mean that the evidence pressed must be viewed in the context of the trial, materiality with determined from the role the evi- played dence would have at trial had the defense known of its existence and had access to it. hotly parties
The contest whether the Win Crash analysis would have made Kris Aldrich’s trial fair. They distinguish logical not, do however, between the components analysis. of the Win Crash On one hand analy- there is the data that went into the Win Crash part, disagrees sis. For the most no one that the defense was entitled to this evidence and that it had adequate pertinent ground access to and notice of the Sgt. measurements that Brandt used when he ran the 14 supra at 434. Kyles, J.
Concurrence Whitbeck, any Kris Aldrich does event, In Win Crash software.15 improperly withheld prosecutor not claim expert Ber- and, fact, defense these measurements of this sort to evidently had sufficient evidence eza analysis Win Crash himself. run the On the other hand is the result Brandt’s Win Sgt. the most analysis allegedly produced, arguably Crash part expert’s report.16 prosecutor of an The valuable defense at time not reveal this result to the did and, despite trial what seemed to be during before or fairly cross-examination, Sgt. Brandt did not rigorous testimony. his trial during Thus, reveal those results discovery question violation in this case becomes prosecutor have an obligation a narrow one: Did the result of the Win Brady disputed under to reveal the because it was Crash to the defense and, disclosure, favorable evidence without such a to be trusted? verdict This focus on the Win result is Crash somewhat typical discovery odds with the focus in violation The Win Crash case. result is not evidence of the a bloody crime in the sense that knife would be evi- videotape dence of a murder or a record a might argue argued Kris Aldrich did not in the trial court and has not on appeal Sgt. should have revealed the calculations missing Brandt to fill in made the data because the Beretta left *29 ground. 16 Taylor, 420, 438-439; 1479; See Williams v 529 US 120 S Ct 146 L Ed (2000) (allegedly psychiatrist’s report accomplice 2d 435 undisclosed of accomplice memory rape “concluded” that the had little of the and double Davis, murder, despite testimony recalling crime); Pitchess v trial 421 482, 483; 1748; laboratory (1975) (suppressed US 44 L 95 S Ct Ed 2d 317 report police samples testing sperm revealed that failed to find on taken Beaver, 963, rape); (CA United States v from victim after 524 F2d 965-966 5, 1975) (prosecution expert’s report, fingerprint turned over entire which identify part points fingerprints did not include the number of used to as conclusion). of by Whitbeck, J. Concurrence clearly robbery, both of which axe material evi-
bank analysis attempts, Win Rather, dence.17 always successfully, Crash not piece together disparate to pieces gathered a of evidence from the scene of crash meaningful description give a order largely physical that contributed to invisible forces provides description When Win Crash of that crash. physical experts those forces—the result—trained supposed Sgt. like Bereza and Brandt are to be able leading up provid- a crash, to “reconstruct” events ing insight perhaps, into the accident even an that, eyewitness give testifying, would not be able to when though they hi words, other even did not observe the experts remarkably crash, these are valuable to the truthfmding they function that a trial serves because analyze interpret know how to the data result. analysis
Given the critical role this sort of data plays forming expert opinion, agree pros- I that the ordinarily obligation ecutor has an to reveal Win "Typically, Crash results to the defense. these expert impeaching results will be relevant to wit- opinion gives ness who an what on contributed to an impact speed.18 accident, Or, such as as Kris Aldrich may contends in this case, these results corroborate exculpatory theory, explicit an defense such as his prove claim that the evidence did not that he was speeding at the crash. This time could contra- prosecutor’s theory dict the that Kris Aldrich was involuntary guilty manslaughter he was because rule.”). NW2d 584 See See MCR People Brownridge (On Remand), (1999) 6.201(A)(6). (“Impeachment evidence . . . falls within the App 210, 214; Brady *30 246 Mich 101 by Whitbeck, Concurrence J. drag racing, committing unlawful at the time act, an recognize the of the accident.19Even the court rules report prepared by expert an critical value of a prosecution requiring that the defense dis- “any report any produced by kind or an close expert for party
witness whom the intends call at to trialf.]”20 ordinary
This, however,
case,
is not an
because the
analysis
actually produced
Win Crash
never
a result.
Evidently, the Win Crash software relies on measure-
ground and,
ments taken from the
because the Ber-
ground
Sgt.
etta
ditch,
left the
when it flew over the
Brandt had to estimate other numbers to enter in the
program replace missing ground
Win
to
Crash
mea-
Win
surements. The
Crash software was able to deter-
perhaps
mine that the numbers he
not,
entered did
or
accurately
physical
not,
could
describe the
forces at
“spin
work, because the
calc” was erroneous.
Although,
printout
value,
taken at face
of the Win
analysis “reported”
page
Crash
five,
results on
Sgt.
Win Crash software noted that
Brandt had not
provided
necessary
complete
analysis
the data
though
even
the software indicated what it would
Consequently,
conclude had those numbers been true.
report
the Win Crash
stated that the
had to
performed again,
indicating
be
reader that report
page
should be read as if
five were blank
because the erroneous calculations were of no conse-
quence.
logically
With
facts,
these
it would be
incon-
analysis pro-
sistent to conclude that the Win Crash
People Holtzman,
App 166, 188;
(1999)
See
v
duced a result regardless of whether it was defense, with the itself defense, “favorable” to the when software support acknowledged that the data could not a final finding.21 *31 uniqueness in
The
this case comes from the lack of
possibility
I
in
an
that,
case,
a result.
expert
see the
another
disregard
might
witness
by
choose to
a result
analysis
produced
a Win Crash
on the basis of sta-
improbability
opinion
forming an
on
tistical
when
despite
an
In that
the
case,
what caused
accident.
validity
questionable
I would
result,
of the
conclude
prosecutor must turn that information
that the
over
defense,
to the
which can then determine whether to
present
jury.22
pros-
Juries,
the evidence to the
not
obligation
the
of deter-
ecutors, are entrusted with
why
mining
evidence,
the ultimate value of
which is
encourage placing all relevant and
courts
admissible
jury.23
prosecutor
in
the
Thus,
evidence
front
the
differing arguments
and defense would offer
concern-
why
jury
rely
ing
should or should not
on the Win
the
a
in
However,
Crash result to render
verdict.
this
21
College Dictionary
(2d ed)
that Random House Webster’s
Note
as an “outcome.”
defines a result
analysis
attempted
analyze whether the Win Crash
is a
I have not
to
6.201(A)(3). However,
possi
report
meaning
I think it
within the
of MCR
“report”
6.201(A)(3) requires
a
under MCR
some of the same indi
ble that
analysis
finality
or conclusion that the Win Crash
this case lacks.
cia of
Souter,
majority
Kyles, supra
paraphrase
writing
To
Justice
for the
439-440, prosecutors
making
cannot avoid
fine line determinations
con
and,
made,
cerning
if
error to be
it
what evidence to disclose
there
Thus,
questionable
even when of
be made in favor of disclosure.
should
analysis
value,
prosecutor
results.
should turn over
508, 514-515;
See, generally, People Wolfe,
Concurrence J. Whitbeck, case, prosecutor neither deprived the defense of present an opportunity Sgt. to Brandt’s Win Crash jury jury’s result to the nor usurped authority to weigh the evidence Sgt. analysis because Brandt’s did produce not a result. assuming analysis
Even that the Win Crash consti- tuted real evidence that suppressed— every which the defense had taken reasonable effort secure making comprehensive discovery request was nevertheless immaterial to the fair- —it ness of the trial. Had Sgt. attempted Brandt to draw any conclusions from analysis, the Win Crash defense would have been object well-advised to testimony, related or an offer to admit the Win Crash analysis printout evidence, into as irrelevant.24 The Win Crash itself speeds warned that it had calculated “are useless when true,” indicating *32 they that were false Having virtually calculations. ordered the individual the inputting data to “Rerun!” the program, no one can doubt the Win Crash analysis had failed to reach a result, regardless of the statistical validity measures of that could shake or shore up confidence in particular result. Fair tri- als simply are not made with evidence that proclaims itself, independent of external judgments, untrustwor- thy patently worthless. Had the defense been able to introduce the in miscalculations the Win Crash analysis at I trial, would be no more certain that Kris
Aldrich, or his brother for that matter, jus- received tice through process a fair trial affords.
24 MRE 401. J.
Concurrence Whitbeck, final See Kyles, *33 supra at 434-435. iv. notes discovery Though was no vio- I conclude that there point mentioning. bears case, lation in this one more pros- hearing trial, on the motion for a new At the part, argued, was in that a new trial not neces- ecutor sary Sgt. Brandt had not relied on the Win because analysis opinion concerning forming his Crash determining whether, That is not relevant to crash. assuming suppress prosecutor did favorable that the evidence, Kris Aldrich is entitled to new trial. For prosecution experts likely strategic will reasons, rely exculpatory on the most material choose not just prosecutor the sort of evidence the evidence, provide argument Moreover, to the defense. must testimony Sgt. was critical to Brandt, whose rely analysis prosecution, Win did not on the Crash arguing submitting the Win akin to that even without jury, Crash to the the evidence adduced trial was still sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Supreme United States sufficiency Court has made it clear that not the standard courts of the evidence is apply determining when whether unconstitutionally suppressing acted evidence.25