Anonymous jury; People v Hanks; People v Williams; Supplemental jury instruction; People v Gaydosh; Scoring of OV 5; MCL 777.35; People v Calloway; Sentence reasonableness & proportionality; People v Posey

The court held that defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims challenging the numbered jury, the trial court’s response to the deliberating jury’s question, the scoring of OV 5, or the proportionality of his within-guidelines minimum sentence. Defendant was convicted of OUIL causing death and reckless driving causing death arising from a road-rage crash in which he brake-checked the other driver and had a 0.124% blood alcohol level. The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 86 to 180 months. On appeal, the court held that he failed to show error from the numbered jury because, “similar to Hanks, the record reflects that both parties were able to extensively question the potential jurors during voir dire, and the record does not suggest that the jurors determined that there was any particular significance to the trial court referring to the jurors by number rather than name.” This case was also analogous to Williams “because there was no suggestion that defendant’s trial was being handled in a special way, nor was there any implication arising from the use of numbers that defendant was dangerous or guilty as charged.” On the jury-question issue, the court held the supplemental instruction did not direct a verdict where the trial court told jurors that “all the evidence that you believe should be considered” and that “if you believe it shows willful or wanton disregard,” then it was “proper” to use intoxication evidence, while reminding them it was their job to decide the facts. As to OV 5, the court held the record supported serious psychological injury that “may require professional treatment,” citing statements describing a “daily struggle,” “sleepless nights,” anxiety, and evidence the victim’s child died by suicide 39 days later, concluding there was “ample evidence of the seriousness of the injuries and their long-lasting effects to support” the 15-point score. Finally, the court held defendant did not overcome the presumption of proportionality for a within-guidelines sentence, reiterating that such a sentence is “presumed to satisfy the principle of proportionality” and noting the trial court relied on the reckless, intoxicated brake-checking and defendant’s lack of acceptance of full responsibility. Affirmed.