8.8Reckless Driving Causing Death
“(1) A person who violates this section is guilty of reckless driving punishable as provided in this section.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who operates a vehicle upon a highway or a frozen public lake, stream, or pond or other place open to the general public, including, but not limited to, an area designated for the parking of motor vehicles, in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of a misdemeanor[1] . . . .
* * *
(4) Beginning October 31, 2010, a person who operates a vehicle in violation of [MCL 257.626](2) and by the operation of that vehicle causes the death of another person is guilty of a felony[.]” MCL 257.626.
•M Crim JI 15.16 addresses the elements of reckless driving causing death.2
For a violation of reckless driving causing death, the following penalties apply:
•imprisonment for not more than 15 years; or
•fine of not less than $2,500 or more than $10,000; or
•both. MCL 257.626(4).
Only applicable sanctions are discussed; accordingly, if a particular sanction is omitted from this section it is not applicable to this offense. The Offense Code Index for Traffic Violations published by the secretary of state and sourced from Michigan Department of State Court Manual includes a table detailing traffic offenses and applicable sanctions. See Section 1.41 for information on abstracting procedures.
•Six points. See MCL 257.320a(1)(e). See Section 1.42 for more information on points.
•License revocation and denial for at least one year. MCL 257.303(2)(d); MCL 257.303(4)(a)(i)-(ii). See Section 1.44 for more information on license revocation and Section 1.43 for more information on license denial.
•Possible vehicle immobilization for not more than 180 days. MCL 257.904d(1)(a). Vehicle immobilization must be ordered if the vehicle is not ordered forfeited. MCL 257.626(4). See Section 1.47 for more information on vehicle immobilization.
•Possible forfeiture of the vehicle. MCL 257.625n(1); MCL 257.626(4). See Section 1.49 for more information on forfeiture.
•Jury Cannot be Instructed on Moving Violation Causing Death
MCL 257.626(5) provides that “[i]n a prosecution under [MCL 257.626(4)], the jury shall not be instructed regarding the crime of moving violation causing death.” While “MCL 768.32(1) sets forth the general rule that a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on necessarily included lesser offenses[,] MCL 257.626(5) . . . sets forth a clear exception to this general rule[.]” People v Jones, 497 Mich 155, 168 (2014).3 The Court found that “MCL 257.626(5) is not a matter of practice and procedure, and, consequently [is not a] violation of separation of powers[.]” Jones, 497 Mich at 169. (concluding that creation of a substantive exception to the rule generally allowing instruction on necessarily included lesser offenses was a permissible exercise of legislative authority).
•Failing to maintain a vehicle and then operating the poorly maintained vehicle
“MCL 257.626 criminalizes the manner or nature of operation rather than the decision to operate following poor maintenance.” People v Otto, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2023). “[F]ailing to maintain a vehicle and then operating the poorly maintained vehicle—cannot support conviction under MCL 257.626(4).” Otto, ___ Mich App at ___. “[T]he second element—reckless driving—requires the manner of operation to be reckless rather than the decision to operate a vehicle that is negligently or carelessly maintained.” Id. at ___. “[T]he third element—operation causing death—requires operation to be the factual and proximate cause of the victim’s death.” Id. at ___. However, “careless maintenance [cannot] satisfy the second and third elements: reckless operation, and operation causing death.” Id. at ___. Indeed, “the prosecution was required to prove that [defendant’s] operation, rather than [defendant’s] poor maintenance must have been the cause of the accident.” Id. at ___. In Otto, “an intervening event, a sudden mechanical failure, superseded [defendant’s] conduct, such that the causal link between [defendant’s] driving and the victim’s death was broken.” Id. at ___. The Otto Court held that “the prosecution failed to allege or prove that [defendant’s] operation, not [defendant’s] maintenance or an unexpected brake failure, was the proximate cause of the victim’s death[.]” Id. at ___. Although “[t]here [was] no dispute that [defendant’s] operation was the factual cause,” “the prosecution could not establish that [defendant’s] operation was the proximate cause because it was attenuated from the harm by the superseding brake failure, severing the causal chain.” Id. at ___.
•Willful and Wanton Disregard
“Willful or wanton disregard means 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.” People v Carll, 322 Mich App 690, 695 (2018) (quotation marks omitted). There was “[e]xtensive evidence” proving the defendant “drove in a manner that willfully or wantonly disregarded a high risk of serious injury to the people in his vehicle and other vehicles” where “there was evidence that defendant purposefully drove through a stop sign at high speed without any attempt to brake and that he might even have accelerated into the intersection.” Id. at 696-697, 698.
1 See Section 6.18 for a discussion of this misdemeanor offense.
2 The instruction should be used only for acts committed on or after October 31, 2010.
3 The Jones Court “[a]ssum[ed], based on the record concession, that moving violation causing death . . . constitutes a necessarily included lesser offense of reckless driving causing death,” and noted that even if it is a cognate lesser offense, the result would be the same because “MCL 768.32(1) does not permit cognate lesser offense instructions.” Jones, 497 Mich at 161-162 n 16, 167-168. For more information on jury instructions, see the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Criminal Proceedings Benchbook, Vol. 1, Chapter 12.