IN RE HAROLD EUGENE ROSS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of HAROLD EUGENE ROSS, Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 13, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 227463
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-339542
HAROLD EUGENE ROSS,
Respondent-Appellant.
AFTER REMAND
Before: Hood, P.J., and Gage and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a bench trial, respondent appealed by right his adjudications of guilty of
negligent homicide, MCL 750.324, receiving and concealing stolen property worth at least
$1,000 but less than $20,000, MCL 750.535(3)(a), motor vehicle felony, MCL 257.732, and
violation of the curfew provision of Detroit City Code 33-3-1. We affirmed respondent’s
adjudication of guilty of curfew violation and reversed his adjudication of guilty of receiving and
concealing stolen property worth at least $1,000 but less than $20,000.
With respect to the negligent homicide charge, however, the trial court failed to make
specific factual findings regarding whether defendant drove the vehicle. Further, the trial court
failed to explain its intended disposition with respect to the manslaughter charge. Therefore, we
remanded this case to the trial court to make factual findings with respect to these charges. In re
Harold Eugene Ross, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 16,
2002 (Docket No. 227463). Having retained jurisdiction, this case is before us to review the trial
court’s findings.1 We affirm.
1
Apparently, at the commencement of trial, the prosecution stated its intent to proceed on only
the manslaughter with a motor vehicle charge. During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued
only that charge. The trial court, however, inexplicably adjudicated defendant guilty of negligent
homicide and failed to address the manslaughter charge. This Court’s opinion remanding this
case to the trial court directed the court to state its findings of fact with regard to the negligent
(continued…)
-1-
On remand, the trial court specifically found respondent operated the vehicle that caused
the accident, which killed one minor victim and injured another. Based on evidence presented at
trial, the court found that respondent drove at an immoderate speed, disregarding the expressed
concern of the passengers in the vehicle. These findings clearly supported the conviction for
negligent homicide.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
(…continued)
homicide charge and its disposition with respect to the manslaughter charge. However, the
remand order addressed only the manslaughter charge. See In re Harold Eugene Ross,
unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 16, 2002 (Docket No. 227463). On
remand, the trial court attempted to adjudicate respondent guilty of manslaughter with a motor
vehicle and dismiss the remaining charges. This has created some confusion with regard to what
adjudication this Court should address. Because, on remand, the trial court made factual findings
concerning respondent’s identity as the driver of the vehicle, we will address the findings as they
relate to the negligent homicide adjudication.
-2-
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.
