*1 239 PEOPLE v CHATTERTON Lansing. Docket No. 47649. Submitted June Decided 3, appeal applied December 1980. Leave to for. examining C. Chatterton was bound over for trial an James charge magistrate following preliminary examination on a quash driving. moved to the information on the felonious He finding ordinary negligence grounds was insufficient that a Court, Gilbert, J., charge. Alice L. sustain the Oakland Circuit people appeal. motion. The Held: crippling injury from a motor vehicle acci- Where a results ordinary negligence dent more than must be shown driving charge statute. The to warrant a felonious properly granted circuit court the defendant’s motion to Holbrook, Jr., J., D. E. dissented. He would hold that a driving under the felonious statute can be sustained driving negligent of a vehicle on a crippling injury. which results in a He would reverse.

Opinion of the Court Driving — — — 1. Criminal Law Automobiles Felonious Ordi- nary Negligence — Statutes. Something more than must be shown charging a defendant under the felonious crippling injury from auto accident statute where results an 28.661). (MCL752.191;MSA Driving Negli- — — — 2. Criminal Law Automobiles Felonious gence — Statutes. negligent driving Felonious is the reckless of a vehicle References for Points in Headnotes 2d, [1, Highway 7A Am Automobiles and 314. Jur Traffic 2] § 2d, 21 Am Jur Law 84. Criminal § statute What amounts to reckless of motor vehicle within making criminal offense. 52 ALR2d 1337. such a 1980] v Chatterton op Opinion the Court (MCL highway, crippling injury 28.661). Kelley, Attorney General, *2 J. Robert A. Frank Derengoski, General, Patterson, L. Solicitor Brooks Prosecuting Attorney, Williams, C. Robert Chief Appellate Counsel, Davison, and Robert Assis- Prosecuting people. Attorney, for the tant O’Dea, PC., & for defendant. Rabette Before: M. F. and D. E. Hol J. H. JJ. Piercey,* brook, Jr. and H. J. J. On November a Piercey, pickup by truck defendant slid driven across the slippery center lane of a section of a five-lane oncoming vehicle, and collided with an occupant seriously injuring an of that vehicle. subsequently charged Defendant was with feloni- driving, contrary 28.661, ous to MCL provides: which person any high-

"Every who drives vehicle way carelessly heedlessly and in wilful and wanton others, disregard due manner so as to person any person, offense of felonious shall be rights safety of the or of or without circumspection speed caution and and at a or endanger endanger likely any or be to property injuring cripple or thereby and so as to death, causing guilty but not shall be of the and conviction thereof pay exceeding one

sentenced to [1,000] a fine not thousand prison imprisonment not exceeding in the discretion of the court.” dollars or to two ^[2] years imprisonment or both fine and in the state Testimony preliminary at es- the examination guilty of, most, tablished that defendant was * judge, sitting Appeals by assignment. Circuit on the of Court The parties in the collision. that the vic- purposes for examination stipulated meaning within the crippling were injuries tim’s examining magistrate The bound the statute. trial, judge but the circuit over defendant to the informa- motion ordinary ground on the that tion statutory require- the satisfy did not negligence due caution and be "without ment that so speed and or in a manner circumspection at a endanger any person endanger or be likely as to from the order appeals Plaintiff property”. quashing must judge that there agree

We with the circuit than ordinary more showing abe crippling negligence injury In the felonious statute. adopt premise of this we well-reasoned *3 support Cavanagh Judge M. dissenting opinion by Marshall, v 523, 528-531; 255 People App Mich (1977). NW2d 351

F.M. concurred. (dissenting). I dissent D. Judge majority set forth in reasons Gillis’s Marshall, v 523; opinion (1977), 255 NW2d 351 in which I concurred.