Sufficiency of the evidence; Operating while intoxicated (OWI) causing death within seven years of a prior conviction (MCL 257.625(4)(b)); OWI causing serious impairment within seven years of a prior conviction (MCL 257.625(5)(b)); Proximate cause; People v Schaefer; A victim’s gross negligence; Sentencing; Proportionality; Consideration of mitigating factors; Rebuttable presumption that a within-guidelines sentence was proportionate; Blood alcohol level (BAL)

Concluding that a rational jury could have found victim-B’s “conduct, while negligent, was not grossly negligent or a superseding cause of the accident,” the court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s OWI convictions under MCL 257.625(4)(b) and (5)(b). Further, he did not “overcome the rebuttable presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was proportionate, and” thus reasonable. He was convicted of OWI causing death within seven years of a prior conviction and OWI causing serious impairment within seven years of a prior conviction. He was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to 20 to 40 years for the former and 9 to 20 years for the latter, to be served consecutive to any sentence he may receive for parole violation. The case arose from an auto collision that took B’s life and severely injured his wife. Defendant argued that B’s conduct “was grossly negligent and therefore a superseding cause that relieved defendant of criminal liability.” The court disagreed. The exact speed at which B “was driving was never conclusively established at trial. To be sure, responding officers who reviewed the video from the day of the accident testified that [B] was ‘going fast’ and ‘moving.’ However, audio from that same video footage suggests that [B] was no longer accelerating the motorcycle as he approached the intersection. And while the view of the accident provided by the video is distant, oblique, and obscured, the accident’s sole eyewitness testified that: she had a ‘clear view’ of the accident, [B] slowed his vehicle as he approached the intersection, he looked to see if traffic was clear, and defendant entered the intersection without stopping at his stop sign, at which time his vehicle struck the motorcycle. The witness also said that she did not see defendant’s vehicle slow down or brake at all.” Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court found that it could not be said that B “was traveling fast enough to support a finding of gross negligence. Further, while the residential setting of the intersection collision is relevant, that fact is insufficient to transform otherwise ordinary negligence into gross negligence.” And although B’s BAL “was above the legal limit, defendant’s [BAL] was more than double the legal limit.” Affirmed.