PEOPLE OF MI V LOUIS E JOHNSON JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
_______________________________________
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 4, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 193241
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 95-053323
LOUIS E. JOHNSON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________
BEFORE: Fitzgerald, P.J., and MacKenzie and Taylor, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by leave granted a circuit court order denying his motion to quash the
information charging him with driving while intoxicated thereby causing death, MCL 257.625(4); MSA
9.2325(4). We reverse.
On August 4, 1994, defendant was driving west on Alma Street in Flint at approximately
twenty-five miles per hour when a minor child darted out in front of his car on a bicycle from a
driveway. The child hit the passenger side of the car, went up in the air, and hit the hood of defendant’s
automobile. Defendant was eventually charged as indicated.
During the preliminary examination, the passenger in defendant’s car at the time of the accident
testified that defendant appeared to be operating the vehicle correctly and was not speeding.
Breathalyzer tests administered more than two hours after the accident indicated defendant had a blood
alcohol level of 0.11%, thus reaching the threshold established in the statute for driving while intoxicated.
Officer Robert Clark, the officer in charge of the case and also an expert in the area of accident
investigation and reconstruction, testified that the victim had been riding his bicycle on the sidewalk and
rode onto a driveway and from there into the street in front of the vehicle being driven by defendant. As
there were parked cars adjacent to the driveway and defendant approached from the back of them,
Clark opined, on the basis of the sight lines, the size of the bicycle, and the rider’s size, that defendant’s
sight of the bicycle and rider may have been obscured by the parked cars. Consistent with this, Clark’s
report concluded that the bicyclist was at fault for failure to yield.
-1
After the district court was finished questioning Clark, the court stated the following:
Just in terms of your cross, I have no evidence indicated [sic] so far that
establishes speeding. I have no evidence indicated [sic] so far a failure to maintain clear
lookout. All the evidence appears to indicate this was a sudden emergency, there was
no time to react, and absent the issue of drinking, that there would not be any evidence
of negligence on the behalf – on the part of this driver.
Defendant argued that the charge had to be dismissed because the statute contained a causation
requirement and the evidence showed his driving did not cause the accident. The court explained that
there was no evidence of negligent driving, and absent the issue of alcohol, it would dismiss the charge if
it was brought on some kind of negligent homicide. The court nevertheless bound defendant over for
trial in the circuit court.
Defendant reiterated his causation argument in the circuit court. With respect to whether the
statute required proof of causation, the circuit court agreed with the district court’s interpretation that
entering a vehicle and operating it while under the influence of intoxicating liquor was sufficient to
establish causation.
We reverse on the basis of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in People v Lardie, 452 Mich
231; 551 NW2d 656 (1996).1 In Lardie, the defendant drove while under the influence of alcohol and
marijuana. Id. at 235. His car hit two trees, killing three of his passengers. Id. While the main issue in
the case was whether MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325 imposed strict liability or required mens rea, the
Court addressed the issue of causation:
In seeking to reduce fatalities by deterring drunken driving, the statute must have
been designed to punish drivers when their drunken driving caused another’s death.
Otherwise, the statute would impose a penalty on a driver even when his wrongful
decision to drive while intoxicated had no bearing on the death that resulted. Such an
interpretation of the statute would produce an absurd result by divorcing the defendant’s
fault from the resulting injury. [Id. at 257.]
A footnote corresponding to the above explanation provided additional clarification:
What is missing is the necessary causal connection between the [reckless]
conduct and the result of [that] conduct; and causal connection requires something more
than mere coincidence as to time and place. [Id. at 257, n 45 (citing 1 LaFave & Scott,
Substantive Criminal Law, §3.12[a], pp 391-392).]
The Court further explained that to prove causation, the prosecution had to:
…establish that the particular defendant’s decision to drive while intoxicated
produced a change in that driver’s operation of the vehicle that caused the death of the
victim. In this way, the statute does not impose a severe penalty when the injury was
-2
unavoidable for that particular driver (regardless of whether he was intoxicated),
because the statute ensures that the wrongful decision caused the death in the accident.
[Id. at 258.]
The Court then set forth the elements necessary to prove the crime: (1) the defendant was operating his
motor vehicle while he was intoxicated; (2) he voluntarily decided to drive knowing that he had
consumed alcohol and might be intoxicated; and (3) his intoxicated driving was a substantial cause of the
victim’s death. Id. at 259-260. In a footnote, the Court explained that to prove causation, the
prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant’s prohibited conduct, i.e., his culpable decision to
drive while intoxicated, substantially contributed to the resulting death. Id. at 260, n 51.
Lardie thus makes it clear that causation is a requirement of the statute. Therefore, the district
and circuit courts erred as a matter of law in ruling that causation was established simply by defendant’s
consumption of alcohol and subsequent driving of his vehicle. The charges must be dismissed because
the evidence adduced at the preliminary examination showed defendant’s driving was not a cause of the
accident. Indeed, the district court stated there was no evidence of careless driving on the part of
defendant in light of the fact that the bicycle was hidden by the cars parked on the street and defendant
was given no opportunity to stop when the child rode his bicycle into the street. There was no evidence
that defendant was driving improperly. Rather, the evidence showed that the accident was a sudden
emergency that defendant could not have avoided.
Defendant’s other issues are moot in light of our holding on causation.
Reversed and remanded to the circuit court for entry of an order of dismissal.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Clifford W. Taylor
1
We recognize that the district court and the circuit court did not have the benefit of this recent opinion
when they issued their rulings in this case.
-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
