Sufficiency of the evidence for a operating while intoxicated (OWI) conviction; People v. Hyde; “Operate” or “operating” (MCL 257.35a(a)); People v. Wood; Blood alcohol level (BAL)

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s OWI conviction, the court affirmed. In his “brief on appeal prepared by his original appellate counsel, defendant conceded that he was intoxicated and that the van was on a highway open to the public, but he argued that the prosecution had failed to present sufficient evidence that he had been ‘operating’ the van. At oral argument,” his substitute appellate counsel “argued that a reasonable doubt existed as to whether defendant had become intoxicated after stopping the van.” The court disagreed with both arguments. It noted that a deputy (C) saw “defendant’s van stopped in the right driving lane of a busy road, causing traffic to back up at the light. [C] saw defendant behind the wheel of the van when he was turning his patrol car around to assist defendant. [C] testified that the only place to sit in the vehicle was in the driver’s seat because of the amount of trash throughout the vehicle. [C] observed the keys in the ignition, and the body camera footage showed that the door made a beeping sound when opened, and that the lights were on. [C] testified that there was no one else at the scene and that, although he never directly asked defendant if he was driving, defendant never suggested that anyone else had been driving the van.” The court found that while “there was no direct evidence presented that defendant had driven the van before it stopped in the road, there was significant circumstantial evidence presented to support that inference. . . . It was reasonable for the jury to infer that [he] was operating his vehicle while impaired before the time at which it became inoperable.” The court also found that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that he “was intoxicated while driving the van before it stopped on the road.” He did not make “any statements indicating that he had stopped the van first and then consumed alcohol[.]” The court noted what while it was “not outside the realm of physical possibility that [he] stopped his vehicle and immediately consumed enough alcohol to raise his” BAL to 0.152, the prosecution “‘is not required to negate every reasonable theory consistent with a defendant’s innocence.”