Background
Jason David Sadowski was prosecuted for killing his roommate, who died from asphyxia caused by bleeding after suffering severe facial injuries and a broken bone in his neck. The victim was in poor health and often required a cane or crutch, while Sadowski had martial-arts experience and sustained little or no injury in the encounter. 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 permitted the prosecution to introduce a video showing him punching and choking another jail inmate. The jury rejected self-defense and found Sadowski guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. The trial court subsequently granted his directed-verdict motion as to that offense, reduced the conviction to second-degree murder, and sentenced him to 50 to 75 years in prison after assessing 50 points for offense variable 6 and 25 points each for OVs 12 and 13.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the second-degree-murder conviction. It concluded that the jailhouse video was likely inadmissible under MRE 405 because it depicted a specific instance of conduct and Sadowski’s character was not an essential element of the murder charge or self-defense claim. But because Sadowski had not preserved that specific objection, the court applied plain-error review and held that admission of the video did not affect the trial’s outcome. Other evidence—including the parties’ comparative injuries, the victim’s physical condition, Sadowski’s martial-arts experience, his statements to police, and testimony that words could provoke him physically—substantially undermined self-defense.
The court also rejected Sadowski’s challenges concerning substitution of appointed counsel, self-representation, excluded evidence, ineffective assistance, the trial court’s reserved ruling on the directed-verdict motion, COVID-19 precautions, and cumulative error. It nevertheless vacated the sentence because the guidelines were incorrectly scored. The trial court improperly used the same conduct to assess 25 points under both OV 12 and OV 13, and the prosecution conceded that OV 6 should not have been scored at 50 points. Because correcting OV 13 to zero and scoring OV 6 at either 10 or 25 points would change the guidelines range, resentencing was required; the trial court must determine the proper OV 6 score in the first instance.
Key Takeaways
- Specific acts offered to prove character generally must satisfy MRE 405, even when character evidence becomes relevant to rebut a defendant’s testimony.
- The likely error in admitting the jailhouse-assault video did not warrant reversal under plain-error review because the remaining evidence strongly contradicted Sadowski’s self-defense claim.
- The same conduct could not support scores under both OV 12 and OV 13, and the erroneous guidelines scoring required resentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between whether character evidence is relevant under MRE 404 and whether the prosecution may prove that character through specific conduct under MRE 405. It also shows the difficulty of obtaining relief from an unpreserved evidentiary error when independent physical and testimonial evidence strongly supports the verdict.
For sentencing practitioners, the opinion underscores that conduct counted under OV 12 generally cannot also be used to score OV 13 and that resentencing is required when corrected scoring changes the applicable guidelines range.