Degree Enhancements and Causation in Fleeing Cases

Michigan’s fleeing and eluding statute provides escalating degrees and penalties. An individual who violates the statute is guilty of second-degree fleeing and eluding when specified aggravating circumstances apply, including when the violation results in serious impairment of a body function. MCL 257.602a(4)(a). If the violation results in death, the statute provides first-degree fleeing and eluding. MCL 257.602a(5).

In addition to incarceration exposure, the licensing consequences are substantial. The Michigan Judicial Institute notes six points and, for higher-degree convictions, mandatory denial or revocation periods measured in years. See MCL 257.320a(1)(f); MCL 257.303(2)(d); MCL 257.319(2)(d).

Causation can be dispositive. For first-degree fleeing and eluding, the Court of Appeals has held that the “results in” language requires factual causation, not proximate causation, for the death element under MCL 257.602a(5). People v Wood, 276 Mich App 669, 676 (2007). Conversely, depending on the charge theory, other statutes and counts may impose proximate-cause requirements. This makes charge-by-charge analysis critical when the state stacks counts.

Finally, Michigan recognizes aider and abettor liability in appropriate cases. A passenger may be convicted under an aiding and abetting theory when the evidence shows intentional assistance to the driver during the flight. People v Branch, 202 Mich App 550, 551–52 (1993). That principle informs both defense strategy and the need to separate driver conduct from passenger conduct in the evidentiary record.

Fleeing cases also raise evidentiary questions about whether the officer’s signal was clear and lawful, whether the defendant knew of the signal, and whether the state can reliably identify the driver. Those issues frequently depend on dashcam video, radio logs, and the timing of dispatch communications. When identity is contested, counsel should aggressively seek the raw video and the underlying pursuit documentation early in the case.

Finally, degree selection is not merely academic. It drives guideline exposure, collateral consequences, and license sanctions. A defense that narrows the causal chain, contests the enhancement facts, or separates the defendant’s conduct from a third party’s conduct can materially change the degree and, with it, the ceiling of punishment authorized by statute. MCL 257.602a(4)–(5).

Where injury or death is alleged, counsel should separately analyze each count’s causation standard and ensure the jury is instructed consistent with the statute charged. The benchbook materials emphasize instruction selection by offense, and misinstruction can be reversible error. A careful element-by-element approach also helps prevent the prosecution from using enhancement facts to inflate the degree without meeting its burden of proof. See M Crim JI 15.29 et seq.; MCL 257.602a.

Why Choose William Maze As Your Criminal Defense Attorney?

As a Detroit criminal defense attorney, I provide specialized expertise in Detroit's court systems. I understand the specific procedures, judges, and prosecutors in Detroit courts, giving my clients a distinct advantage in their criminal defense cases.

Local Expertise:

• Knowledge of Detroit judges' preferences
• Experience with Detroit prosecutors
• Understanding of local court procedures
• Relationships with court personnel

Attorney Credentials:

• 28+ years Detroit experience
• Expert witness qualified
• Former CDAM President
• SFST certified instructor

William J. Maze, Esq.

Detroit Criminal Defense Attorney

Expert Witness 28+ Years