Driver in fatal crash faces competency hearing on murder, manslaughter charges
A University of Michigan student is expected in court today for a competency hearing that could determine whether he stands trial on murder charges stemming from a deadly crash in Pittsfield Township in March.
Michael Kelly, 21, faces five felony charges, including second-degree murder and operating while intoxicated causing death. If deemed competent to stand trial, Kelly will also have a preliminary hearing this afternoon in district court, according to court records.
Authorities charged Kelly in May after an investigation showed his Dodge Durango crossed the median on US-23 and struck two vehicles near the Michigan Avenue interchange at about 4 p.m. on March 12.
Algonac resident Brandon Rapp, 25, was behind the wheel of the second vehicle and died at the scene. The driver of the third vehicle involved was not injured.
Kelly’s attorney, Andrew Abood, said Kelly is schizophrenic, and he intends to use the insanity defense should the case get bound over for trial.
A civil suit filed by Rapp’s family is pending in circuit court.
Art Aisner is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
Snap
Mon, Nov 22, 2010 : 10:42 p.m.
Mr. Kelly's defense is based on his diagnosis of schizophrenia - not consumption of alcoholic beverages. Yes, he is being treated for schizophrenia and I believe spent a considerable amount of time in the hospital for same... I also believe his diagnosis was a shock to the family and unknown until this point. My understanding with regards to the DUI charge is that he was charged based on metabolites of marijuana in his system. However, the levels indicated not recent use - but could have been weeks or months before the accident. I am always the first to call for strict penalties on drivers killing under the influence - but I do not see that as the case here. More importantly, to bring a civil case against his mother is horrific. I know - go where the money is...but to further devastate the future of the rest of this family due to this horrible accident will never bring the victim back. This loving and generous family has gone through hell and back these past few years. Had they been aware of his condition, I believe they would have done everything possible for him - especially with their ties to the medical community. I still pray for the Kelly family. I also still pray for the Rapp family and the loss of their loved one. No winners here - but raging against something when you don't have all the facts is a reflection of just how far people have strayed from "innocent until proven guilty" and religious teachings of forgiveness and understanding. Sad.
MikeFromTroy
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 4:12 p.m.
He was found competent to stand trial. He was bound over to the forensic hospital pending his preliminary exam in December. He was not released on bond because the judge feels he is a flight risk, and he had to be picked up in Petosky when the warrant was originally issued for is arrest.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 12:06 p.m.
I am glad to know that our legal system takes things into consideration such as the ability to stand trial. There really are people out there who are too mentally ill to receive a fair trial. I can't make any comments about this case because I don't know enough about it. But rest assured, a person has to be seriously out of touch with reality to be determined unfit for trail. It isn't something any judge takes lightly. It is also something quite different than an insanity defense. An insanity defense is when a defendant says that they aren't responsible for the crime because of their mental illness. This is a hearing to determine if the defendant is sane enough to stand trial for the crime. Very different things.
jns131
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 10:09 a.m.
Everyone tries for this cop out plea. Especially if it means he will probably spend at least 20 or more years in prison. I really hope the book is thrown at him. Wow. If he really is insane, then why does he drive or I should say why does he drive. O my. Good luck to the family and I hope this plea deal does not go thru.
Lola
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 9:11 p.m.
It sounds to me like the only person who is insane and/or incompetent is the defendant's attorney.
halflight
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 3:11 p.m.
@ Ed: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the net, Gee, you're no fun. I would hesitate to draw the precise same conclusion from a reading of the case. Certainly there are other issues involved in that decision, but the court specifically addressed whether the presence of a metabolite in the bloodstream alone is enough to convict: We hold that 11-carboxy-THC is not a schedule 1 controlled substance under MCL 333.7212 and, therefore, a person cannot be prosecuted under MCL 257.625(8) for operating a motor vehicle with any amount of 11-carboxy-THC in his or her system. The court puts forward various arguments for why the metabolite doesn't qualify as a schedule 1 controlled substance, including a finding that, unlike THC, the metabolite itself does not impair a driver.
halflight
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 2:22 p.m.
@ Basic Bob: Halflight, Greek God,??? He wasn't intoxicated. The state police are using the test results improperly. Urine tests detect evidence of past drug use, not impairment. The prosecutor has the burden of proof that he was intoxicated. There's current case law-- People v. Feezel-- saying that the presence of THC/marijuana metabolites in the bloodstream aren't enough to convict. If the defendant wasn't intoxicated, why bring forward an insanity defense? An insanity defense admits the underlying crime (driving while intoxicated), but claims that the defendant's mental illness prevented him from forming criminal intent-- in this case, knowingly operating a vehicle after consuming an intoxicating substance.
Basic Bob
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 12:02 p.m.
@halflight, Greek God, He wasn't intoxicated. The state police are using the test results improperly. Urine tests detect evidence of past drug use, not impairment. "Kelly is alleged to have been operating under the influence of marijuana.... the levels in his bloodstream suggested Kelly hadn't used marijuana for days or weeks."
Killroy
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 11:12 a.m.
Nuts! If Kelly is indeed schizophrenic, I still don't see how this factors into the equation here? The fact remains that he was operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Period. He killed a person. If, for some reason, his medications combined with alcohol caused him to become intoxicated more quickly, then if he hadn't taking them it is still on him not to drive and to wait until he sobers up.
jcj
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 10:34 a.m.
Well one might argue that there are many with mental illness attending the U of M.
MI-expatriate
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 10:32 a.m.
Well that definition of "competent to stand trial" is a nice way out. All this man needs to do is top taking meds, if he is taking meds, and he walks? The court who makes that decision should be on the receiving end of his next incident like this to know what that feels like, except they won't feel a thing. They'd be dead at the scene.
halflight
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.
Elaine F. Owsley wrote: Driving under the influence is not incompetent Competency to stand trial is a different issue from the actual crime charged to the defendant. If mental illness prevents a defendant from assisting his attorney to prepare a defense, the defendant is incompetent to stand trial-- regardless of whether he was sane at the time of the alleged crime.
RJA
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 9:50 a.m.
Was M. Kelly actually diag as schizophrenic? Was he being treated? I don't see where insanity plays a part here. Incompetent my FOOT!
Elaine F. Owsley
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 9:33 a.m.
If he can handle courses at UM, he must surely be on some kind of meds for his condition. Driving under the influence is not incompetent - it's stupid and dangerous.
halflight
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 9:33 a.m.
How on earth does the insanity defense apply here? There's no mens rea, or criminal intent, other than knowingly consuming alcoholic beverages and then driving an automobile. Is the defense arguing that his schizophrenia prevented him from knowing that he was doing either of those things?