PEOPLE OF MI V MEHO HUSEJNAGIC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 18, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 244547
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-000349-01
MEHO HUSEJNAGIC,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Saad and Schuette, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury conviction for OUIL causing death, MCL
257.625(4). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. In determining whether
sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, a reviewing court must view the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and determine whether any rational finder
of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992). The standard of
review is deferential: a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make
credibility choices in support of the jury verdict. People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614
NW2d 78 (2000).
To support an OUIL causing death conviction, the prosecution must prove that (1) the
defendant was operating his motor vehicle while intoxicated, (2) that he voluntarily decided to
drive knowing that he was intoxicated, and (3) that the defendant’s intoxicated driving was a
substantial cause of the victim’s death. People v Lardie, 452 Mich 231, 259-260; 551 NW2d
656 (1996). MCL 257.625(4) requires proof that the defendant had a general intent to drink and
drive. It does not impose strict liability, but requires that the culpable mental state have a causal
relationship with the harm it seeks to prevent. Id., 267.
A reasonable juror could conclude that defendant’s intoxicated driving was a substantial
cause of the victim’s death. Defendant had a high blood alcohol level. There was evidence that
-1-
he was speeding on an icy road. The medical evidence he presented refuted his defense that the
accident was caused by a heart attack. There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
