Background
Defendant and his ex-wife Everlin Cano shared custody of their child. In July 2021, the child contacted Cano complaining of being hungry while staying with defendant. Cano went to defendant’s apartment with her boyfriend, the victim. An argument broke out between the victim and defendant’s girlfriend, which continued outside the apartment. When the victim began exiting Cano’s car after defendant’s girlfriend spit at him, defendant fatally shot the victim in the back. The victim was unarmed and never touched either defendant or his girlfriend.
After defendant’s jury trial ended in mistrial, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter in exchange for dismissal of the felony-firearm charge. The trial court assessed Offense Variables 5 and 6 at 15 and 25 points respectively, and sentenced defendant to 7 to 15 years’ imprisonment. The restitution order included $780 for two memorial pendants—a sliding heart pendant and a wings pendant—purchased from the funeral home and listed on its invoice.
Defendant appealed by leave granted, challenging the restitution order for the pendants and the assessment of Offense Variables 5 and 6.
The Court’s Holding
The court vacated the restitution order as to the two memorial pendants. Although Michigan’s restitution statutes require courts to order restitution for “actual funeral and related services,” the court held that memorial pendants are not compensable funeral expenses. The court ruled that restitution is limited to losses with a direct causal relationship to the crime and must be reasonable. While the statutes authorize recovery for both goods and services used in funerals, memorial jewelry purchased by a family for personal remembrance—even when sold by a funeral home—falls outside the statutory language. The prosecution presented no evidence that the pendants were used to prepare, conduct, or complete the actual funeral or facilitate disposition of the remains. The mere fact that items were listed on a funeral home invoice does not transform them into compensable funeral expenses.
The court affirmed the 15-point assessment for Offense Variable 5 (psychological injury to victim’s family). The victim impact statements demonstrated serious psychological injury rising above ordinary grief: the victim’s family reported that one family member sought counseling, and multiple relatives described the loss as “destroying” their lives and leaving a permanent “hole in this family.” The court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court improperly presumed psychological harm based solely on the nature of the offense, noting that the trial court explicitly relied on the victim impact statements.
The court affirmed the 25-point assessment for Offense Variable 6 (offender’s intent). The court held that the intent element for voluntary manslaughter—intent to kill, intent to do great bodily harm, or creation of very high risk of death with knowledge that death was probable—aligns squarely with the statutory requirement for 25 points under MCL 777.36(1)(b). Defendant’s guilty plea to manslaughter was therefore sufficient to support the higher point assessment. The court further rejected defendant’s argument that the killing occurred in a “combative situation,” finding that defendant armed himself before the confrontation and shot the victim in the back, and that the victim was not the aggressor toward defendant.
Key Takeaways
- Items purchased from funeral homes are not automatically compensable funeral expenses under Michigan’s restitution statutes; they must actually be used for the funeral or related services.
- Restitution for funeral expenses requires proof that costs are actual, reasonable, and directly related to the funeral or disposition of remains—not commemorative purchases for family members’ personal remembrance.
- Serious psychological injury to a victim’s family can be established when family members sought mental health counseling, even without a formal diagnosis of a clinical disorder.
- The intent element for a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter aligns with the statutory requirements for the higher point assessment under Offense Variable 6.
Why It Matters
This case addresses an issue of first impression in Michigan: defining “actual funeral and related services” under the restitution statutes. The court’s decision establishes important limits on victim restitution, clarifying that not all expenses incurred at a funeral home qualify as compensable funeral costs. This distinction prevents restitution orders from becoming tools to compensate families for memorial purchases or keepsakes, while preserving the statutes’ purpose to make victims whole for actual, necessary funeral expenses. The ruling will guide trial courts in distinguishing between legitimate funeral expenses and discretionary memorial items.
The decision also confirms that victim family members’ psychological treatment resulting from a violent crime can support restitution and sentencing enhancements without requiring a formal mental health diagnosis. Additionally, by affirming the higher Offense Variable 6 scoring for a manslaughter plea, the court clarifies that defendants charged with lesser included offenses cannot receive reduced sentencing scores based on technicalities regarding the specific charge they pleaded to—the underlying criminal intent is what matters for guideline calculations.