Background
Jason David Sadowski was charged with murdering his roommate, who died from asphyxia caused by bleeding after suffering severe facial and neck injuries. The victim was in poor health and often needed a cane or crutch, while Sadowski had martial-arts experience and emerged from the encounter with little or no injury. Sadowski claimed that the victim was the aggressor and that he acted in self-defense.
After Sadowski testified that he did not start fights, the trial court admitted a video showing him punching and choking another jail inmate. The jury rejected his self-defense claim and found him guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. The trial court then granted his reserved motion for a directed verdict as to that offense, reduced the conviction to second-degree murder, and sentenced him to 50 to 75 years in prison.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed Sadowski’s conviction. It concluded that the jailhouse video was likely inadmissible under MRE 405 because it showed a specific instance of conduct even though Sadowski’s character was not an essential element of the murder charge or his self-defense claim. Because Sadowski had not objected under MRE 405, however, the court applied plain-error review and held that the video’s admission did not affect the outcome. The physical evidence, Sadowski’s martial-arts testimony, his statements and conduct after the killing, and testimony that words could provoke him provided substantial evidence against self-defense.
The court also upheld the denial of Sadowski’s requests for substitute counsel and self-representation, the exclusion of evidence concerning a female neighbor, and the rejection of his ineffective-assistance and cumulative-error claims. His self-representation request was not unequivocal because he said he would proceed without counsel only “under duress” and did not prefer that course.
The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. The trial court improperly used the same child-sexually-abusive material to score both OV 12 and OV 13 at 25 points, contrary to MCL 777.43(2)(c). The 50-point score for OV 6 was also erroneous. The trial court must determine in the first instance whether OV 6 should receive 10 or 25 points, including whether the death occurred in a combative situation. Either permissible OV 6 score, combined with a zero score for OV 13, changes the applicable guidelines range.
Key Takeaways
- Specific acts generally cannot prove a defendant’s character under MRE 405 unless character is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense.
- Even likely evidentiary error does not warrant reversal under plain-error review when strong independent evidence defeats the claimed defense and the error did not affect the outcome.
- The same conduct cannot be used to score both OV 12 and OV 13 when the statutory restriction in MCL 777.43(2)(c) applies.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the procedural importance of stating the correct evidentiary objection at trial: although the jailhouse video was likely admitted through an impermissible method of proving character, the unpreserved issue received plain-error review and did not produce reversal.
It also reinforces that sentencing variables cannot be scored redundantly from the same conduct when the guidelines prohibit double counting. A scoring error requires resentencing when correcting it changes the applicable guidelines range, even though the conviction itself remains intact.