Background
Michael Shaun Moriarty was driving on a dark, rural road in Van Buren County when his Toyota RAV4 struck and killed Todd Mullin, who was beside or straddling a disabled motorcycle near the roadway’s edge. Moriarty admitted drinking six or seven beers, and the parties stipulated that his blood-alcohol level was 0.18% at the time of the collision. Mullin was wearing dark clothing, and toxicology evidence showed that he had alcohol, THC, and methamphetamine in his system.
At trial, the parties’ accident-reconstruction experts disagreed about whether the collision was avoidable. The prosecution’s expert testified that Moriarty could have changed lanes or swerved, while the defense expert opined that even a sober driver would not have had enough time to perceive and avoid Mullin. A jury convicted Moriarty of operating while intoxicated causing death. The trial court denied his postverdict motions for acquittal and a new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence permitted a rational jury to find that Moriarty’s operation of the vehicle proximately caused Mullin’s death. Viewed in the prosecution’s favor, the record allowed the jury to conclude that Mullin’s intoxication, dark clothing, and position near the roadway amounted at most to ordinary negligence, not gross negligence or intentional misconduct that would supersede Moriarty’s conduct and break the causal chain.
The court explained that the jury could credit the prosecution expert’s opinion that Moriarty could have swerved and could find it reasonably foreseeable that a rural road would be dark and that a disabled vehicle might be on or near the shoulder. Unlike the jury in People v. Feezel, this jury heard evidence about the victim’s intoxication and was permitted to evaluate whether his conduct was a superseding cause. Moriarty also waived a challenge to the causation instructions by expressly approving them at trial.
The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial. Because the evidence reasonably supported the jury’s proximate-cause finding and did not preponderate heavily against the verdict, allowing the conviction to stand was not a miscarriage of justice.
Key Takeaways
- A victim’s intoxication or negligence does not automatically become a superseding cause; the jury must determine whether the conduct was reasonably foreseeable or instead amounted to gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
- Conflicting accident-reconstruction testimony presented a credibility question for the jury, and the appellate court would not reweigh the experts’ opinions.
- Expressly approving jury instructions and stating that there are no objections waives appellate review of alleged instructional error.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the deferential review applied to causation findings in operating-while-intoxicated death cases. When the jury receives evidence of the victim’s impairment and conduct, Feezel requires that evidence to be considered but does not dictate that the jury find a superseding cause.
The opinion also underscores the importance of preserving objections to causation instructions. Counsel who affirmatively approves the charge generally cannot later challenge its complexity or accuracy on appeal.