Restitution; Crime Victim’s Rights Act; MCL 780.766; MCL 769.1a; “Actual funeral & related services”; Memorial jewelry; OV 5; Serious psychological injury to victim’s family; MCL 777.35(1)(a); OV 6; Intent to kill or injure; MCL 777.36(1)(b); Manslaughter; Combative situation; Victimization by decedent

In an issue of first impression, the court held that the trial court erred by including two memorial pendants in restitution. But the trial court did not err by scoring OV 5 at 15 points and OV 6 at 25 points. Defendant pled guilty to manslaughter after fatally shooting the victim during a confrontation involving defendant’s former wife and girlfriend. The court first held that restitution under MCL 780.766 and MCL 769.1a may include goods and services, but only when the expenses are actually incurred for the funeral or “related services” and are reasonable. It rejected defendant’s argument that restitution is limited to services because that would exclude traditional funeral items such as caskets, urns, and flowers. But the court held that the pendants were not compensable because the prosecution presented no evidence that they were used “to prepare, conduct, or complete the actual funeral” or otherwise constituted a related service. The invoice alone did not suffice because treating every memorial item sold by a funeral home as compensable would make the statutory phrase “actual funeral and related services” meaningless. The court next held that OV 5 was properly scored because victim-impact statements showed “profound and lasting emotional harm,” including that the victim’s sister sought counseling. Finally, the court upheld the 25-point OV 6 score because manslaughter’s intent element “aligns squarely” with MCL 777.36(1)(b), and the trial court did not err by finding the killing did not occur in a “combative situation” or in response to victimization of defendant by the victim. Affirmed in part and vacated in part.