Operating a vehicle with the presence of a controlled substance (marijuana) causing death; Challenges to the prosecution’s references to two medications (Flexeril & Valium) in defendant’s system & their clinical effects; People v. Feezel; People v. Schaefer; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to file a motion in limine before trial to exclude evidence of Flexeril or Valium in his system or the effect of those drugs on his body; People v. Lane; Lay opinion regarding the cause of the collision; MRE 701 & 704; Miller v. Hensley; Sentencing; Upward departure; Reasonableness; People v. Lockridge; People v. Steanhouse; People v Dixon-Bey; People v. Solmonson

The court held that the evidence as to the presence of Flexeril and Valium in defendant-Kelty’s body did not affect his substantial rights. Also, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a witness to offer a lay opinion about the cause of the accident. Finally, the trial court justified its upward departure sentence and the reasonableness of the 2½ year departure, so Kelty’s sentences did not violate the principle of proportionality. He was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while license suspended or revoked causing death, and operating a motor vehicle with the presence of a controlled substance [THC (marijuana)] causing death. On appeal, he challenged the prosecution’s references to two medications, Flexeril and Valium, in his system and their clinical effects. He argued that “the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to comment during the opening statement that blood test results revealed that defendant had THC, Flexeril, and Valium in his system at the time of the accident, to comment on the effect of these drugs on the body, and to elicit testimony that blood test results showed the presence of Flexeril and Valium in his system at the time of the accident.” The court concluded that even assuming he could show plain error as to the prosecution’s opening statement and the admission of the evidence about the presence of Flexeril and Valium in his system, he did not demonstrate that the error affected his substantial rights. The question was whether his “operation of the vehicle proximately caused the motorcyclist’s death, not whether a reason explained how” he was operating his vehicle. The evidence overwhelmingly indicated that he was driving his vehicle southbound in the northbound lane of the road “when the motorcycle legally turned into the northbound lane” of the road and collided head-on with his vehicle, showing that his operation of his vehicle “directly and naturally caused the motorcyclist’s death.” Thus, the evidence about the presence of Flexeril and Valium in his body did not affect his substantial rights. Affirmed.