Sufficiency of the evidence for a reckless driving causing death conviction; MCL 257.626(4); The willful or wanton disregard element; People v Fredell; People v Carll; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to advance a meritless argument

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to prove that defendant-Coker “willfully or wantonly disregarded the safety of others[,]” the court affirmed his reckless driving causing death convictions. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to the second element of the offense. “The trial court defined willful or wanton disregard for the jury as ‘more than simple carelessness[] but does not require proof of an intent to cause harm. It means knowingly disregarding the possible risks to the safety of people or property.’ This instruction comports with the caselaw: ‘To show that a defendant acted in wilful and wanton disregard of safety, something more than ordinary negligence must be proved.’” The court noted that Carll provided an “example of sufficient evidence of the” negligence required. The evidence here showed that “Coker was driving while willfully distracted by his cell phone.” His appellate brief asserted that a call he made right before the collision, using a Bluetooth device, showed “Coker ‘was not knowingly disregarding the possible risks to the safety of those around him. It shows that [he] was concerned with the risks. [He] cancelled his future trip to assess the risks, and was travelling near the posted speed limit at the time of the accident.’ But that was not the exclusive manner in which Coker used his phone. The jury also heard evidence that [he] was distracted and not looking up at the road.” The court concluded that the “riffling through documents, using his left hand to hold the documents on his steering wheel, holding his iPhone with his right hand to photograph the documents for a span of two to three minutes, all while holding a six minute long conversation with a colleague rather than looking up at the road demonstrated a culpable state of mind, that Coker knowingly disregarded the safety of those around him. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a juror could find, beyond reasonable doubt, that these actions willfully and wantonly disregarded the safety of others around him.”