Serious Impairment, Predicate Violations, and Defense Themes

Michigan makes it a misdemeanor to commit a moving violation while operating a vehicle in a place open to the public when the moving violation causes serious impairment of a body function to another person. MCL 257.601d(2). The Michigan Judicial Institute notes that the statute is paired with a specific criminal jury instruction and authorizes up to 93 days in jail, a fine up to $500, or both. See MCL 257.601d(2); M Crim JI 15.19.

This charge is built on two core pillars: a predicate moving violation with criminal penalties and the causation and seriousness of the injury. The state must prove the underlying violation beyond a reasonable doubt and then prove that the violation caused the alleged serious impairment. When there are multiple contributing causes, the defense should force the state to address how and why the predicate violation, rather than another driver’s conduct or roadway conditions, created the injury outcome.

The statute also expressly provides that it does not prohibit charging, conviction, or punishment for other violations of law. MCL 257.601d(3). As a result, defendants may face stacked counts arising from the same collision, making early charge assessment and element-by-element litigation essential.

A focused defense approach includes challenging the predicate violation, contesting medical proof of serious impairment, and litigating causation. That combination can produce dismissals, reduced charges, or negotiated resolutions that protect the license and minimize long-term consequences.

Because “serious impairment” can be contested, the defense should treat the medical record as an element, not a mere sentencing fact. Timelines of symptoms, preexisting conditions, compliance with treatment, and functional limitations can be critical. When the injury proof is overstated, that weakness can be leveraged for dismissal, reduction, or a trial instruction that accurately reflects the legal threshold. See M Crim JI 15.19.

Finally, counsel should account for collateral sanctions, including points and license actions, when evaluating plea offers. A resolution that appears favorable in court can still be damaging if it triggers avoidable licensing penalties. Coordinating the defense with a licensing strategy is therefore part of competent representation in these cases. See MCL 257.601d; MCL 257.320a.

Michigan’s structure also means that decisions at arraignment and early conferences can have downstream effects. Preserving defenses, demanding discovery promptly, and litigating dispositive issues early can prevent the case from hardening into an unfavorable posture. In serious-collision cases, delay can mean lost video, overwritten vehicle data, and fading witness memory, all of which disproportionately harms the defense.

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