Sentencing; OV 3 scoring; MCL 777.33(2)(b); Acquitted conduct; People v Beck; Res gestae; People v Stokes; Rational-jury approach; People v Brown; Factual causation; People v Laidler; Relief from judgment; MCR 6.508(D)

The court held that the trial court did not err by assigning 100 points for OV 3 because it relied on defendant’s role as the catalyst for the fatal home invasion, not acquitted conduct barred by Beck. Defendant was convicted of first-degree home invasion and felony-firearm for aiding and abetting a home invasion that led to a shooting in which a three-year-old child died, but he was acquitted of murder and assault-related charges. On appeal from the denial of relief from judgment, defendant argued that the trial court violated Beck by using acquitted conduct to score OV 3. The court first noted that OV 3 requires 100 points “if death results from the commission of a crime and homicide is not the sentencing offense,” and that the causal requirement is factual causation, meaning the death would not have occurred but for defendant’s criminal actions. The court then held that defendant failed to show reliance on acquitted conduct because the sentencing offense was first-degree home invasion, and the jury necessarily found that he aided and abetted the home invasion that resulted in the child’s death. The court emphasized that the trial court focused on defendant’s pre-offense conduct as the “catalyst” for the death, including that he “mobilized an angry, volatile young person” who had “a penchant for using guns” over missing shoes. The court further explained that sentencing courts may consider “the entire res gestae of an acquitted offense” and “the time, place, and manner” of the convicted offense, and that defendant’s phone call and participation in bringing the armed group together supported the OV 3 score. Affirmed.