Supreme Court overturns parts of driver's conviction in pedestrian death in Ypsilanti Township
The Michigan Supreme Court has overturned parts of a motorist's conviction in the death of a pedestrian who was drunk and walking in the road.
The court said Tuesday a Washtenaw County jury in 2005 should have been allowed to hear the victim had been drinking, just like driver George Feezel.
In the same case, the Supreme Court's liberal majority also said it's not illegal to drive while having a marijuana byproduct in the body. The court says "11-carboxy-THC" can't be considered a controlled substance under Michigan law.
The justices say it's a byproduct created when the body breaks down marijuana's active ingredient. The court ruled differently in 2006 when it had a conservative majority and faced the issue in another case.
Feezel was convicted in January 2007 of driving while intoxicated and causing the death of Pittsfield Township resident Kevin Bass, 39, at about 2 a.m. July 21, 2005.
Feezel was driving westbound on Packard Road near Clubview Drive in Ypsilanti Township when his SUV struck Bass as he crossed the roadway. Feezel drove away and stopped a few blocks later to call his family. They urged him to return to the scene, where he was arrested.
Circuit Judge Archie Brown ordered Feezel to serve seven to 30 years in prison. During appeals at the circuit court and state appellate court level, his attorneys argued the crash was unavoidable and said Bass, who was intoxicated, was partly to blame.
Comments
Terrin
Thu, Jun 10, 2010 : 8:13 p.m.
The sentence was high because a high sentence was mandatory under Michigan law. Specifically, if you kill somebody with the marijuana by-product in your system you automatically get a high sentence regardless of the circumstances. That was part of the grounds for Appeal. The by-product can stay in your blood for weeks and has been proven to have no effect on one's abilities. So, essentially this kid got an unreasonably high sentence merely because he had the by-product in his system even though that wasn't a factor in him hitting the pedestrian. Further, on top of the accident happening early in the morning, the victim was walking in the middle of the street at 2 in the morning. He wasn't crossing at an intersection either. The defense wanted to point out that the guy who got hit was drunk and not responsibly crossing the street. It never got to present that evidence to the jury.
treetowncartel
Thu, Jun 10, 2010 : 3:02 p.m.
For certain it is a good result. This is a poorly lit area and traffic is moving at 45 mph, not trying to excuse the accident, but there were other factors at play other than the defendant's own actions. This also seems like a pretty high sentence, I wonder if there were some priors on his record.
clownfish
Thu, Jun 10, 2010 : 8:16 a.m.
FINALLY some common sense out of the Supreme Court! http://tinyurl.com/2777thv