Background
Jason David Sadowski was charged with murdering his roommate, who was found dead from asphyxia caused by bleeding after suffering severe facial injuries and a broken neck bone. The victim was in poor health and often used a cane or crutch. Sadowski, whose hand was swollen when police located him at a hotel, maintained at trial that the victim attacked him and that he killed in self-defense.
After Sadowski testified that he did not start fights and described his martial-arts experience, the trial court allowed prosecutors to present a jailhouse video showing him punching and choking another prisoner. The jury found Sadowski guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, but the trial court granted his reserved directed-verdict motion and reduced the conviction to second-degree murder. The court sentenced him to 50 to 75 years in prison after scoring offense variables 6, 12, and 13.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the 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 the objection based on MRE 405 was unpreserved, however, the court applied plain-error review and held that admission of the video did not affect the outcome. The victim’s extensive injuries, Sadowski’s lack of comparable injuries, his martial-arts experience, his statements to police, and other testimony undermined his self-defense theory independently of the video.
The court also rejected Sadowski’s challenges concerning substitution of appointed counsel, self-representation, excluded evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, the directed-verdict procedure, COVID-19 precautions, and cumulative error. It nevertheless vacated the sentence because the trial court improperly used the same conduct to score both OV 12 and OV 13 at 25 points and erroneously scored OV 6 at 50 points. The trial court must determine on remand whether OV 6 should receive 10 or 25 points, including whether the death occurred in a combative situation; either score, combined with a zero score for OV 13, changes the guidelines range.
Key Takeaways
- Specific-act evidence offered to prove a defendant’s character is restricted by MRE 405 and generally is not admissible unless character is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense.
- The likely erroneous admission of the jailhouse-assault video did not warrant reversal under plain-error review because substantial independent evidence undermined Sadowski’s self-defense claim.
- A sentencing court may not use the same conduct to score both OV 12 and OV 13 when the statutory exclusion in MCL 777.43(2)(c) applies.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that character evidence made relevant under MRE 404(a) must still be introduced through a method permitted by MRE 405. It also shows the difficulty of obtaining reversal for an unpreserved evidentiary error when physical and testimonial evidence independently supports the verdict.
For sentencing practitioners, the opinion reinforces the prohibition against double-counting conduct under OVs 12 and 13 and the requirement that OV 6 generally be scored consistently with the verdict. A scoring error requires resentencing when correcting it changes the applicable guidelines range.