Sufficiency of the evidence; OWI; “Operating” a truck; MCL 257.35a(a); Motion for mistrial

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s OWI conviction and that the record did not support his claim the officer’s statement required the trial court to declare a mistrial, the court affirmed his convictions of OWI and operating a vehicle without a license. Defendant argued “that due process requires reversal of his OWI conviction because the prosecutor presented insufficient evidence to establish he was intoxicated while actually operating his vehicle.” He contended “that he was not ‘operating’ his truck within the meaning of MCL 257.35a(a).” This argument was unpersuasive. The court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence presented to support the jury’s verdict. Defendant conceded “that his blood-alcohol content was above the legal limit when his blood was taken, and he admitted to driving his truck to the intersection before it became disabled.” Also, he “smelled of alcohol and admitted to drinking earlier in the day, and the arresting trooper observed multiple vodka bottles under defendant’s driver seat, noting that some were empty or partially empty. The lack of direct statements or witness testimony presented at trial to show the alcohol consumption occurred before defendant’s truck broke down is immaterial given the circumstantial evidence presented.” Moreover, the court noted that “the trooper observed defendant’s truck at the intersection with the headlights and taillights activated. The trooper testified that defendant’s truck was not parked next to the curb and that other vehicles had to drive on the sidewalk to get around the truck, which created a traffic hazard. Accordingly, the truck was ‘in a position posing a significant risk of causing a collision’ when the trooper arrived.” Similarly, the court noted that “defendant admitted he had been drinking earlier in the day, stating he had consumed shots of liquor and three to six beers. It was, therefore, reasonable for the jury to infer that defendant was operating his vehicle while impaired prior to the time at which it became inoperable.” Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support his OWI conviction.